Full text of "Gateways : exploring the legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902"

See other formats

Contributions to
Circumpolar Anthropology 1
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
2001

Arctic
C^enter

(3 a t e w a u 5

Exploring the ]_egacij o f the J
North pacific E-Xpedition, 1 5 1 ^02

Igor Krupnik and

William W.Fitzhugh, editors

GATEWAYS

Exploring the Legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition
1 897-1 902

1 / Jochelson's caravan of reindeer sleds crossing the Verkhoyansk Mountain Range, Siberia, winter 1 902
(AMNH 1 749)

Explof"'f^g the Legacy of the Jesup

North f acific Expedition, 1 65^/-] 5>02

IGOR KRUPNIK AND

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH, EDITORS

Published by the

Arctic Studies Center,

National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C.

6' 3 5

r " .7

© 2001 by the Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C. 20560-01 12
All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 0-9673429-1-0

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONTROL NUMBER: 2001099149

'^The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information
Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.

Early versions of the papers in this volume were presented at the 92nd meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Washington D.C, 1993.

Technical editor: Nancy Levine

Cover and volume design: Anya Vinokour

Production editor: Elisabeth Ward

Printed by United Book Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD

This publication is Volume 1 in the Arctic Studies Center series. Contributions to Circumpolar Anthropology.
THIS SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY THE JAMES W. VANSTONE (1925-2001) ENDOWMENT

Front Cover: Siberian Yupik (Eskimo) girls dancing in the village of Ungazik (Indian Point), Chukotka, Siberia, Spring
1 901 . Waldemar Bogoras, photographer (AMNH 1 344)

Bac/c Cover. Skidegate, a Haida village, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, 1900. John Swanton, photographer
(AMNH 330387)

contents

xi
xiii

ntroduction

Contributors
List of Figures
Abbreviations
Foreword

Note on Cyrillic Transliteration
INTRODUCTION

William W. Fitzhugh and Igor Krupnik

THE RESULTS OF THE JESUP EXPEDITION
Franz Boas

IN MEMORY OF DOUGLAS COLE, 1938-1997
Igor Krupnik

part On&

The Expedition

THE GREATEST THING UNDERTAKEN BY ANY MUSEUM? FRANZ BOAS, MORRIS
JESUP, AND THE NORTH PACIFIC EXPEDITION
Douglas Cole

FRANZ BOAS AND THE SHAPING OF THEJESUP EXPEDITION SIBERIAN RESEARCH,
1 895-1 900
Nikolai Vakhtin

part ~]~wo

The Collectors

93 (DIS)PLEASURESOFTHETEXT: BOASIAN ETHNOLOGY ON THE

CENTRAL NORTHWEST COAST
Michael Harkin

1 07 KWAZI'NIK'S EYES: VISION AND SYMBOL IN BOASIAN REPRESENTATION

Barbara Mathe and Thomas R. Miller

139

HARU\N I. SMITH'S JESUP FIELDWORK ON THE NORTHWEST COAST
Brian Thom

181

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS OF FRANZ BOAS AND GEORGE HUNT:

A RECORD OF 45 YEARS OF COLLABORATION

Judith Berman

part ~]~lir

e e

The Resources

217 THE "RUSSIAN BASTIAN" AND BOAS: WHY SHTERNBERG'S "THE SOCIAL

ORGANIZATION OF THE GILYAK" NEVER APPEARED AMONG THE JESUP
EXPEDITION PUBLICATIONS
Sergei Kan

257 500 YEAR OLD QUESTIONS, 1 00 YEAR OLD DATA, BRAND NEW
COMPUTERS: BIOLOGICAL DATA FROM THEJESUP NORTH PACIFIC
EXPEDITION

Steven Ousley and Richard Jantz

279 VOICES FROM SIBERIA: ETHNOMUSICOLOGY OF THEJESUP EXPEDITION
Richard Keeling

297 A JESUP BIBLIOGRAPHY: TRACKING THE PUBLISHED AND ARCHIVAL

31 7 PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS OF THEJESUP EXPEDITION: A REVIEW OF

THEAMNH PHOTO COLLECTION
Paula Willey

LEGACY OF THE JESUP EXPEDITION

Igor Krupnik

327

Index

contributors

Judith Berman is a research associate in the Ameri-
can Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Her vari-
ous publications, as well as her Ph.D. thesis "The Seals'
Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation of Boas' Kwak'wala
Texts", examine the legacy of Kwakwaka'wakw re-
search and publications by Franz Boas and George
Hunt, the significance of the Boas-Hunt cooperation,
and aspects of the Kwak'wala language and folklore.

Douglas Cole (1938-97) was professor of his-
tory at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. He was
known for his numerous writings on the contact his-
tory of the Native peoples of the Northwest Coast, on
scientific exploration and museum collecting in British
Columbia, and on art and literature in Canadian colo-
nial society. His most influential contributions to North
Pacific anthropology include three major volumes: Cap-
tured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest Coast Ar-
tifacts (1 985); An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law
against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast (1 990,
co-authored with Ira Chaikin); and Franz Boas: The Early
Years, /SSS-/ 906 (published posthumously in 1999).

William W. Fitzhugh is director of the Arctic Stud-
ies Center and curator at the Department of Anthro-
pology, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution. He has spent almost 30 years
studying circumpolar archaeology and publishing on
Arctic peoples and cultures in Canada, Alaska, Siberia,
and Scandinavia. Special interests include prehistory
and environmental archaeology, circumpolar maritime
adaptations, and culture contacts. At the Smithsonian,

he has produced several exhibits that resulted in ma-
jor catalog volumes, such as Inua: The Spirit World of
the Bering Sea Eskimo; Crossroads of Continents: Cul-
tures of Siberia and Alaska; Ainu: Spirit of a Northern
People; and Vikings. The North Atlantic Saga.

Michael Harkin is associate professor of anthro-
pology and American Indian studies at the University
of Wyoming. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in anthro-
pology from the University of Chicago and has taught
at Emory University and Montana State University. He
is the author of The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and
History on the Northwest Coast (1 997).

Richard Jantz is a professor in the Department of
Anthropology and director of the Forensic Anthropol-
ogy Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
He received his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. His
research interests are ancient and modern human quan-
titative variation in anthropometrics, dermatoglyphics,
and skeletal morphometries.

Sergei Kan is professor of anthropology and Na-
tive American studies at Dartmouth College, Hanover,
N.H. Most of his publications, including his recent book
Memory Eternal (1 999), deal with the Tlingit Indians'
culture and the history of Russian Orthodox Christian-
ity among Native people in southeastern Alaska. Re-
cently he has been working on a new book on Russian
anthropologist Lev Shternberg that will cover
Shternberg's life, his public and scholarly career, and
his relationships with Franz Boas, Waldemar Bogoras,
Waldemar Jochelson, and other members of the Jesup
Expedition project.

Richard Keeling, formerly with the University of
California, Los Angeles, worked for several years on
documenting and analyzing early recordings of tradi-
tional Native American music, primarily of native groups
of northern California. He has published several papers
on Yurok, Hupa, and Karok music as well as an exten-
sive annotated catalog of music and voice recordings
collected between 1900 and 1938, A Guide to Early
Field Recordings (1900-1949) at tlie Lowie Museum
of Anthropology 0 991 ). He now lives in the Bay Area.

Igor Krupnik is an ethnologist at the Arctic Stud-
ies Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Born
and educated in Russia, he has done extensive field-
work among the Siberian Yupik people in the Bering
Strait area, in the Russian Far East, and recently in Alaska.
He is currently coordinator of various international
projects studying the impacts of global climate change
and the preservation of the cultural heritage and eco-
logical knowledge of Native peoples. He has published
and co-authored several books and catalogs, and he
writes extensively on Arctic Native peoples. Native heri-
tage resources, modernization, and minority issues.

Barbara Mathe is senior Special Collections li-
brarian at the American Museum of Natural History in
New York. In 1 997 she co-curated (with Thomas Miller)
the Jesup Centenary Exhibition at the AMNH, Drawing
Shadows to Stone: Photographing North Pacific
Peoples, 1897-1902. She is currently working on a
book of photographs of the anthropological exhibi-
tions at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1 904.

Thomas R. Miller is a doctoral candidate in an-
thropology at Columbia University. His Ph.D. disserta-
tion, "Songs from the House of the Dead," explores the
role of the early phonograph in the history of muse-
ums and anthropology through a study of shamans'
songs recorded by Franz Boas, James Teit, Waldemar
Jochelson, Waldemar Bogoras, and others, during the
Jesup Expedition and beyond. He worked for several
years with the Asian ethnographic collections at the
AMNH in New York, including the original collections
of the Jesup Expedition. In 1997, he was a guest cura-

tor (with Barbara Mathe) of the Jesup Centennial Exhibit
Drawing Shadows to Stone at the AMNH.

Stephen Ousley is the director of the Repatria-
tion Osteology Laboratory in the Department of An-
thropology, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. He received
his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
His research interests include the history of anthropol-
ogy, morphometries, quantitative genetics, and foren-
sic anthropology.

Brian Thorn is a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology
at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. His M.A. thesis
at the University of British Columbia (1995) was fo-
cused on the history of archaeological excavation of
burial mounds and cairns along the Northwest Coast.
He worked for several years with Coast Salish com-
munities in British Columbia on the problem of aborigi-
nal titles to land and cultural resources.

Nikolai Vakhtin is a professor at the European
University, St. Petersburg, Russia. He teaches courses
in field linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the cultural an-
thropology of Siberia. He received his Ph.D. (1 977) and
full doctorate (1 993) in Siberian Yupik linguistics from
the Institute of Linguistic Studies of the Russian Acad-
emy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. He has done exten-
sive research in Native languages and modern culture
change among the minority peoples of northern Rus-
sia, including the Yupik, Aleut, Chukchi, and Yukagir. He
has written several books and over 80 articles on the
languages and cultures of the northern indigenous
peoples of Siberia.

Paula Willey is currently a project manager for
Gallery Systems, a provider of collections management
software for museums, galleries, and private collec-
tions. Previously, she worked at the AMNH Library as
Special Collections manager.

Saskia Wrausmann is a undergraduate student
at the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va.
Her primary interests are in cultural and biological an-
thropology. In 2000 and 2001 interned at the Arctic
Studies Center. She is fluent in German and French.

viii

ist of fiP:ure5

1. Jochelson's caravan of reindeer sleds crossing the Verkhoyansk Mountain Range, Siberia. 1902 ii

2. The Jochelsons' team with the expedition boat at Kolyma River, Siberia, 1901 xii

3. Field of Proposed Operations of thejesup North Pacific Expedition, 1 898 xvi

4. Camp of the Reindeer Koryak and herd of reindeer, with the Jochelsons' tent in the middle 26

5. Franz Boas, 1858-1942 49

6. Morris K.Jesup, 1838-1908 49

7. Waldemar Bogoras, N.G. Buxton, and Waldemar Jochelson before departure to Siberia, 1900 50

8. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky and Waldemar Jochelson before the Jesup Expedition, Spring 1 899 51

9. Franz Boas posing for exhibit group 52

10. Jochelson's team rafting down the Korkodon River, Siberia, Fall 1901 53

1 1 . Waldemar Bogoras with his native guides on the Kolyma River, Siberia, 1 895 54
1 2. Waldemar and Sofia Bogoras, with Expedition freight at Mariinsky Post, Siberia, 1 901 55

13. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky, 1862-1941 56

1 4. Dina and Waldemar Jochelson in their field tent in Eastern Siberia, ca. 1 896 57
1 5. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky emerging from native sod-covered hut, Summer 1900 58
1 6. Waldemar Bogoras and his native guides in Chukotka. Spring 1 901 58
1 7. Bogoras and his guides preparing for winter sled trip. Spring 1 901 59
1 8. Bogoras and Russian Cossacks on the Anadyr River, Summer 1 900 59
1 9. James Teit and his wife Lucy Antko 60

20. George Hunt and his wife Ttaflatawidzannga, at Beaver Harbour, British Columbia 61

21 . N.G. Buxton in Gizhiga, Siberia, flanked by the local Russian officer and his secretary. Spring 1901 62

22. Harlan I. Smith during his excavations at the Great Eraser Midden, Eburne, British Columbia 63

23. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky and native guides in field camp among the Reindeer Koryak, 1901 64

24. Kwakwaka'wakw woman poses for museum life group, as Boas and Hunt hold backdrop 90

25. Kwazi'nik, a Niaka'pamux woman, 1897 106

26. The photographer's figure, his camera, and tripod reflected in the eye of Kwazi'nik 1 1 3

27. Typical "physical type" photographs from the Jesup Expedition, Siberia, 1900 114-115

28. First of two photos depicting the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch at Fort Rupert, 1 898 1 16

29. Second photo of the same Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch ceremony 1 1 7

30. Sketches of facial paintings of the Niaka'pamux (Thompson Indians) 118

31. Yukagir shaman's coat from thejesup Expedition collections being modeled for camera 1 18
32-33. Yukagir shaman in full costume, photographed for a mannequin-style museum display 119

34. A grave marker in the form of a carved wooden "copper," Fort Rupert, British Columbia 1 20

35. Native woman in traditional deerskin clothing, with a little girl, 1 897 121

36. Secwepemc (Shuswap) woman in traditional clothing posing for a root-digging scene 122

i X

37. Emma Simon, a Niaka'pamux (Thompson) woman, posing for a staged life-scene photo 123

38. Niaka'pamux life group at AMNH based on staged photographs from the Jesup Expedition 123

39. Miniature diorama of the Koryak winter settlement based on the Jesup Expedition 124

40. Koryak hunters dragging killed white whale on sledge, Spring 1901 125

41 . Koryak men posing for a "dog-offering" ceremony, Siberia, 1 901 125

42. Chief Petit Louis (HIi Kleh Kan) of the Kamloops Band, Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation 126

43. Haida painting of a bear, illustrating "split representation" 127

44. Yupik (Siberian Eskimo) man from the village of Ungazik (Indian Point), Siberia, 1 901 1 28

45. Map of locations visited by Harlan I. Smith during the Jesup Expedition, 1 897-99 161
46-47. Smith's burial excavation at Kamloops, Thompson River area, British Columbia, 1 897 162

48. Archille James, age 1 9, from Katzie, British Columbia, 1 897 164

49. House post collected by Smith at Musqueam, British Columbia, 1898 163

50. Crave post, called "Laxktot," Comox, British Columbia, 1898 165

51 . Salish burial ground, Nicola Valley, British Columbia, 1 899 166

52. Map of the Kwakwaka'wakw area 167

53. Sketch of K'odi's copper by George Hunt 168

54. Site plan of Fort Rupert (Tsaxis) as it was ca. 1 865. Drawing by George Hunt, 1919 1 69

55. Fort Rupert asaxis) beforel 865 * 1 70-71

56. Watercolor of Fort Rupert, May 8, 1 866 1 72

57. Fort Rupert (Tsaxis), 1 881 173

58. Map of Clio Channel showing Kwakwaka'wakw historical villages, ca. 1 840 1 74

59. Killer whale mask * 175

60. Tlingit seal bowl * 1 76

61 . Jesup Expedition collections displayed at the American Museum of Natural History, 1 905 214

62. Lev Shternberg conducting a census among the Sakhalin Island Nivkh (Gilyak), ca.l 895 249

63. Staff of the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg, including Lev

"ft

Shternberg, Vasily Radloff, Sarra Ratner-Shternberg, and Waldemar Jochelson 249

"it

64. Lev Shternberg and Sarra Ratner-Shternberg 250

65. Lev Shternberg in 1924 251
66-67. Front and back of JNPE North American anthropometric data sheet filled in by Boas, 1 897 252-53
68-69. Front and back of JNPE Siberian anthropometric data sheet filled in by Jochelson, 1901 254-55

70. Use of the Edison phonograph for sound recording, Mariinsky Post, Siberia, 1900 256

71 . Map indicating location of groups measured during the Jesup Expedition 261

72. Canonical analysis of Native Siberians and Aleut measured during the JNPE and Riabushinski Expeditions 269

73. Dendrogram of Siberian and Aleut anthropometric samples 2 70

74. North Pacific canonical distribution plot 2 71

75. Dendrogram of populations measured during the JNPE and the Riabushinski Expedition 272

76. Notation of song sung by a Koryak female shaman. Recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1 900 281

77. Notation for a song sung by a Koryak male shaman. Recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900 282

78. Notation for a song sung by a Tungus male shaman. Recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1901 282

79. Notation of a song sung by a Yupik Eskimo man. Recorded by Waldemar Bogoras, 1901 283

Note: All photographs (unless marked by an asterik above) are courtesy Department of Library Services,
American Museum of Natural History. Maps were produced by Marcia Bakry, National Museum of Natural
History. Other figures were provided by the respective authors and are separately credited.

abbreviations

AAA American Anthropological Association

AAAS American Association for the Advance-

ment of Science

AAN Arkhiv Akademii Nauk (Archives of the

Russian Academy of Sciences)

AFC American Folklife Center, Library of

Congress, Washington, DC

AMNH American Museum of Natural History, New
York

AMNH-DA American Museum of Natural History,
Department of Anthropology

AMNH-L American Museum of Natural History,
Library, Special Collections Division

APS American Philosophical Society,

Philadelphia

APS-C American Philosophical Society, Franz
Boas Professional Correspondence

ATM Archives for Traditional Music, Indiana

University, Bloomington

BAAS British Association for the Advancement

of Science

BAE Bureau of American Ethnology,

Washington, D.C.
CUL Columbia University Library, Rare Books

and Manuscripts, New York
HBC Hudson's Bay Company

HBCA Hudson's Bay Company Archives,

Winnepeg, Manitoba
HUA Harvard University Archives, Boston

lASSA International Arctic Social Sciences

Association

InV-JC Institut Vostokovedeniia (Institute of

Oriental Studies), St. Petersburg, Waldemar
Jochelson Collection

JNPE Jesup North Pacific Expedition

MAE Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology

and Ethnography, St. Petersburg

MJC Melville Jacobs Collection, University of

Washington, Seattle

NAA-BAE National Anthropological Archives,
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Ameri-
can Ethnology Collection

NMNH National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

NYPL New York Public Library, New York

RAS-B Russian Academy of Sciences,

Archives, St. Petersburg Branch,
Waldemar Bogoras Collection

RAS-F Russian Academy of Sciences, Archives,

St. Petersburg Branch, Fonoteka (Pho-
nographic Collection)

RAS-J Russian Academy of Sciences, Archives,

St. Petersburg Branch, Waldemar
Jochelson Collection

RAS-S Russian Academy of Sciences, Archives,

St. Petersburg Branch, Lev Shternberg
Collection

SI Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

2/ The Jochelsons' team with the expedition boat at the Kolyma River, Siberia, 1 901 (AlVlNH 1 679)

X i i

^orcsNorc

This book, Gateways: Exploring the Legacy of the Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, 1 897-1 902, honors
anthropology's most prominent founding father, Franz
Boas. It follows the historical trails of Boas' first (and
last) attempt to produce a comprehensive and synthetic
panorama of native cultures of the North Pacific Rim.
As part of a decade-long retrospective of Boas' signa-
ture contribution to the science of anthropology and
to the construction of a regional culture history, this
book has been an academic exploration through space
and time.

Our involvement with the Jesup Expedition began
in the 1 980s when our team at the Smithsonian's Na-
tional Museum of Natural History was working on the
exhibit Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and
Alaska and its accompanying catalog (published! 988).
Inevitably, the Crossroads project looked both to the
past and the future, since it explored the history and
prospects of both the peoples of the North Pacific and
the discipline of anthropology. The central issue for
Boas in the 1 890s, as for our team in the 1 980s, was
whether contemporary anthropology could answer the
fundamental questions about the origins and history
of Native Americans and their relationships to Siberian
peoples and cultures. To Boas, the traditional disci-
plines of history and anthropology of his time seemed
inadequate for the task, as there was neither written
history for the North Pacific prior to the 1 740s nor a
competent ethnography, archaeology, folklore, or lin-
guistics for most of the Native nations in the area.

In the early 1990s, as the centennial of the Jesup
North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902) was approach-
ing, we anticipated the opportunity to reopen the ques-
tions posed at the start of this early anthropological
rite of passage in the North Pacific. New perspectives
based on a full century of advances in anthropological
methods and theory could be combined with hopes for
a new political geography. This would allow trans-
Beringian research and cultural exchange to commence
after decades of denial. We hoped that new scholarship
and rapprochement might lead to a reevaluation and
renewal of Boas' goals for the Jesup Expedition. With
some temerity, we decided to give an appropriate name
to the undertaking and called it "Jesup 2." We orga-
nized a session on the subject in 1 992 at the First
Congress of the International Arctic Social Sciences
Association (lASSA) in Quebec, which was itself a crea-
ture of the new detente between East and West. And we
proposed there a neo-Boasian effort to take up the
task of North Pacific anthropology and culture history
more or less where Boas and his Russian, German, Ameri-
can, and Canadian colleagues had left it when their
careers and lives expired in the 1930s-1940s.

This volume represents one of the several tributar-
ies of the Jesup 2 stream that we imagined might flow
from the resurgence of North Pacific cultural studies.
Originally the plan was crafted for a panel discussion
organized at the 1 993 American Anthropological As-
sociation meetings held in Washington, D.C. At that
session we intended to explore new perspectives on

xiii

the original Jesup Expedition through the study of its
record of unpublished manuscript materials, photo-
graphs, personal papers, notes, and ledgers, from col-
lections in both Russia and North America. Many of
these documents were not available to the original
expedition team (or its successors), and they add mea-
surably to our understanding of their efforts, as well as
to what did not get accomplished. We also felt that a
thorough reevaluation of the Jesup Expedition legacy
would serve as added mortar to the scholarly struc-
ture we hoped would be soon forthcoming.

As it has turned out, the opportunities for a coordi-
nated Jesup 2 program produced some pleasant sur-
prises. Through much hard work we were able to en-
gage a new group of curators and institutions in Alaska
and the Russian Far East to produce a smaller version
of the Crossroads exhibit. It traveled to rural Alaska
and the Russian Amur-Sakhalin region, spreading its
message of cultural exchange and cooperation to the
peoples responsible for these cultures in the first place.
Another surprising development was the opportunity
to produce a major exhibition on the Ainu people, one
of the cultures targeted by Boas for the Jesup Expedi-
tion. As it happened, very little ethnographic work on
the Ainu was accomplished during the expedition, and
their exclusion from its collections and publications
resulted in an ambiguous status for this culture as a
North Pacific people for the remainder of the 20th cen-
tury. Fortunately we found a way to correct this defi-
ciency in 1 999 through a special exhibition, Ainu: Spirit

of a Northern People, and a book featuring this culture
and its history and art.

In addition to such opportune windfalls, we also
found our Jesup 2 voyage marked by unanticipated
shoals and navigational hazards. Wiser heads from the
1 992 lASSA meeting were right to caution us about
planning such an optimistic program in the absence of
a Smithsonian "Morris Jesup," or some suitable institu-
tional or philanthropic replacement to sponsor new re-
search and publications, and we have had to refocus
and adapt. I would like to thank all those people and
institutions who have contributed by participating as
symposia and panel members, correspondents, con-
tributors, and supportive bystanders in our various ef-
forts of the past decade to forward the Boasian goal
of a more integrated and inclusive North Pacific an-
thropology. Although it has not been possible so far
to launch a multi-institutionally, orchestrated centen-
nial Jesup 2 program, many elements of this concept
are nevertheless moving forward in the broader inter-
national anthropological community. We can, belat-
edly and with only slightly chastened optimism, re-
port progress on many fronts, as reported in the fol-
lowing Introduction. Not the least of these advances
is the current volume, which suffered several untimely
publication setbacks before reaching this happy con-
clusion. Though Boas' team made little use of written
history in its "Jesup 1 " project, it is proving an invalu-
able component of the "Jesup 2" effort some one hun-
dred years later.

William W. Fitzhugh, Director
Arctic Studies Center

X I V

note on Cmh \c
transiiterarion

Two coexisting systems are in use in the United States
for transliterating Russian Cyrillic letters into English:
that of the Library of Congress (LC), and that of the
National Image and Mapping Agency (NIMA, formerly
the U.S. Board of Geographic Names). The LC system is
used for bibliographic references; the NIMA system ap-
plies to geographic names (place names) and to most
ethnic names.

All Russian or Siberian geographic names are
transliterated here according to the NIMA system,
which uses ya, yu, and yo for Cyrillic /o, and e
(Yakutsk, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, etc.). Throughout this
volume, Native Siberian ethnic names are transliter-
ated in accordance with the Peoples of the Soviet
Union map produced by the National Geographic
Society in 1989, which basically adheres to the
NIMA system (Yakut, Yukagir, Koryak, Nanay, etc.).
Most of these ethnic names are already established
in Western anthropological literature— thanks largely
to the Jesup Expedition's pioneering publications.
This system also results in names reminiscent of sev-
eral Native American group titles familiar to North
American readers: Yurok, Maya, Yup'ik, Eyak, Yokut,
Yakutat, Tlingit, and so on. Furthermore, the NIMA-
based spelling of ethnic and geographic names is
similar to the Russian/Cyrillic transliteration system
adopted in England and Canada and to the one com-
monly used by modern Russian authors when writ-
ing papers in English. The NIMA-based system is also
applied here for transliterating a few Russian or

Native Siberian personal names, words, and ethno-
graphic terms in individual papers.

In contrast to the NIMA system, the Library of Con-
gress transliteration system uses ia, in, and io for the
Cyrillic >7, /oand eand an apostrophe for the Russian
soft sign (b). Because today's highly standardized elec-
tronic library catalog formats are based on the LC sys-
tem, names of Russian authors and all titles of items in
the bibliographic reference sections in this volume
adhere to the LC system. Using two transliteration sys-
tems in a single book may be inconvenient, but every
effort has been made to adhere strictly to each of these
patterns in its designated application in order to estab-
lish a high level of consistency for all future Arctic
Studies Center publications. For the convenience of
readers, an alternative NIMA-based transliteration of
Russian authors' names is sometimes provided in pa-
rentheses in those cases where such a pattern has been
established by earlier publications (for example, the
original Jesup Expedition series, Antliropology of the
North: Translations from Russian Sources). Despite all
our efforts, we may not have been able to eliminate all
potential cases of confusion or the occasional idio-
syncratic usage.

We are grateful to our colleagues Pavel llyin (U.S.
Holocaust Museum), Michael Krauss (Alaska Native Lan-
guage Center, University of Alaska), and Marjorie
Mandelstam Balzer (editor. Anthropology and Arche-
ology of Eurasia) for their advice on transliteration prac-
tices for ASC publications.

x V

1897 1898 1899 1900 1901

3/ Field of Proposed Operations of thejesup Nortli Pacific Expedition, 1 898 (adapted from American Museum of Natural History. Annual
Report of the President for the Year 1 897)

xvi

introduction

WILLIAM W. FITZHUCH
AND IGOR KRUPNIK

Ever since the European discovery of America, the ques-
tion of the origins and history of Native Americans has
been a subject of ardent public interest and scholarly
debate. Theories of Asian origins, first advanced by
Jose de Acosta in 1 598, remained eclipsed for centu-
ries by Eurocentric theories of Phoenician, Egyptian, or
Celtic migrations across the Atlantic. But with the emer-
gence of academic anthropology in the late 1 9th cen-
tury, the idea of an Asian/Siberian route to the Ameri-
cas prevailed and was elaborated into major research
initiatives. Of these, the most crucial was the jesup
North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902), the first, and as
yet the most coordinated, single study ever under-
taken of the peoples and cultures of the North Pacific
region.

Throughout most of the 20th century, politics has
been the most difficult stumbling block for trans-North
Pacific scholarship. Although Asia and North America
are clearly visible from each other's shores at the Bering
Strait, during most of the 20th century this narrow 56-
mile waterway was both a symbolic ideological bar-
rier and a bristling frontier of military and political con-
frontation. The struggle not only separated Native fami-
lies from their relatives across the Bering Strait; it also
had a crushing effect on scholarly cooperation. Previ-
ous experience demonstrates that meaningful research
in the North Pacific requires active international col-
laboration between American, Canadian, Russian, Eu-
ropean, and Japanese scientists. Such research expands
dramatically with open communication, including data

exchanges and comparative study, and it progresses
best within a framework of multidisciplinary perspec-
tives and close linkages between the social and natu-
ral sciences.

Anthropological research conducted by partici-
pants in the Jesup Expedition between 1 897 and 1 902
began with these principles in mind. After many de-
cades of embargoed communications and stifled schol-
arship, we now may reexplore the opportunities that
were originally pioneered bythejesup Expedition team.

This volume is an outgrowth of such an attempt to
pursue the study of peoples and cultures across the
North Pacific area a full century after the Jesup Expedi-
tion crews were sent to the Northwest Coast of North
America and the shores of Siberia. This new initiative is
called Jesup 2 in honor of its predecessor and because
it follows in the steps of the original Jesup Expedition
surveys and publications. With borders reopening and
exchange resumed, the time may be opportune for
new research and partnerships. If history and current
trends are a guide, the 2 1 st century will bring renewed
life and importance to the Alaskan-Siberian crossroads,
a region that has been a breeding ground for cultural
development and intercontinental human links for thou-
sands of years.

Shared Lands, Common History

The Greater North Pacific Region has special impor-
tance in the study of Native American and Siberian
cultures. As far as is known, the Bering Strait was

the major (if not the only) proven entryway for move-
ments of human populations from the Old into the
New World before A.D. 1 500, and it has been host to
many subsequent Asian-American interactions. For this
reason, the vast region around the Bering Strait is usu-
ally called "Beringia," and it has a very special impor-
tance for the culture history of the Americas.

During the Ice Age, lowered sea levels produced a
broad land bridge that enabled intercontinental dis-
persal of animals and plants, either through the harsh
continental interior or following a milder Pacific coastal
route. Even after the disappearance of the last land
bridge about 1 1 ,000 years ago, prehistoric communi-
cation across the Bering Strait continued by boat or
overwinter ice. Unlike the North Atlantic region, where
thousands of miles of ocean and uninhabited lands
separate Europe from North America, in the North Pa-
cific region Beringia acted both as a channel and as a
"quality control" point for contacts and exchange. Other
possible routes exist along the Aleutian Chain, across
the open waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, or, for
the more hapless, across the expanses of the North
Pacific, pushed by westerly currents and winds. Thus,
people as well as artifacts large and small found their
way from Asia to America (and back) on a sporadic
basis. Regular contacts and exchanges between hunt-
ers from neighboring tribes situated around the entire
coastal margin of the North Pacific Rim would have
been even more influential over the long run.

Historically, the North Pacific region was one of the
last large areas of the world to be contacted by Euro-
peans, and it is still one of the world's best-preserved
cultural regions. As the Russian, British, Spanish, and
American explorers witnessed in the 1 700s, its pro-
ductive lands and waters supported indigenous
peoples and cultures with highly developed technolo-
gies, social structures, and art. On their first encoun-
ters, many European observers reported that Native
groups from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the
Northwest Coast of North America exhibited certain
similarities in culture, language, and physical type.

Suggestions of common origins or shared ancestry
were made on the basis of these early observations
and anecdotal evidence. Similar observations were
made about the region's natural history, since both
sides of the North Pacific have a common set of ma-
rine mammal, avian, and fish species and share many
comparable environments and climate regimes.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,
1897-1902

Despite similarities noted by explorers, early ethno-
logical studies in Alaska and Northeast Siberia through-
out the 1 700s and most of the 1 800s were oriented
toward description of regional and even individual eth-
nic cultures. In that halcyon era of "natural history" schol-
arship, detailed observation and systematic record-
ing, rather than theorizing, carried the day. For this
reason, the launching of the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-
tion in 1 897 marks a milestone in the history of North
Pacific studies. Its objectives, field program, and sub-
sequent publication activities were all designed by
Franz Boas, then assistant curator in the Anthropology
Division at the American Museum of Natural History
(AMNH) in New York. Boas and others realized that
science would never solve larger questions by study-
ing cultures and regions in isolation.

Funded privately by Morris K. Jesup, president of
the AMNH, the Jesup Expedition had as its purpose the
investigation of the history of Native cultures and their
relationships throughout the North Pacific region.
Among the questions posed were some of the oldest
and most exciting in the history of American anthro-
pology: the origins and migration routes of the Ameri-
can Indians and Eskimos; cultural relations between
Asia and the Americas; and the histories, ethnology,
and material culture of the complex tribes of the Greater
North Pacific Region.

The objectives of this broad regional synthesis
called for field studies on a scale never before at-
tempted in anthropology. In drafting the Jesup Expedi-
tion program, Boas skillfully integrated a number of

INTRODUCTION

scholarly resources of his time. The project was built
on his previous work among Northwest Coast tribes
in the late 1 880s and early 1 890s (see Cole, this vol-
ume); on the successful record of the earlier Smithsonian
naturalists' work in Alaska (Fitzhugh 1 988), and on
whatever bits of information about the Native peoples
of Siberia were then available to western anthropolo-
gists (see Vakhtin, this volume). As a newly appointed
museum curator. Boas also saw the Jesup Expedition
as a vehicle for building museum collections for scien-
tific and exhibition purposes.

Ideally the Jesup Expedition was to be conducted
by teams of anthropologists (or other trained profes-
sionals) who specialized in ethnology, archaeology, folk-
lore, linguistics, and physical anthropology. Careful
collections were to be made, and the geographic dis-
tribution of cultural elements— ethnographic and ar-
chaeological objects, language, physical traits— was
to be thoroughly documented, following newly for-
mulated principles of diffusion and cross-cultural stud-
ies. By utilizing this plan, Boas expected to produce a
broad regional synthesis that would be a model for his
method of detailed comparison and multidisciplinary
field research.

As might be expected of the founder of American
anthropology, Boas was decades ahead of his time.
He instructed the members of the team he assembled
to gather masses of ethnological data, including facial
casts, body measurements, photographs, folklore texts,
wax recordings, archaeological artifacts, and linguistic
records. He dispatched his field crews to the North-
west Coast, Alaska, and Siberia with the imprimatur of
the AMNH and with funds provided by Morris Jesup,
together with his own detailed instructions on data
collecting. Fieldwork lasted from several summer
months (for Boas, Dixon, and Farrand, in North America)
up to two full years (for the Jochelsons in Siberia). The
researchers then returned and prepared monographs
under Boas' direct supervision.

The AMNH's coffers soon filled with thousands of
ethnographic specimens, and its archives burgeoned

with documents, field notes, and photographs. Even-
tually, 11 Jesup Expedition volumes, comprising 31
separate reports on detailed ethnographic descriptions,
folklore, and physical anthropology, were published,
as were several dozen external articles and other mono-
graphs. All this made the Jesup Expedition one of the
most extensively published anthropological projects
ever (see Krupnik, this volume).

As project leader, Boas had the task of complet-
ing the final monograph and synthesizing its field re-
sults. But despite heroic efforts, his team had barely
succeeded in scratching the surface, and even Boas
became daunted by the immensity of the task and by
the dragging performance of many of his associates
(see Ousley and Jantz, this volume; Kan, this volume).
To the dismay of his sponsor, Morris Jesup, he never
completed what was to have been the final mono-
graph in the JNPE series. Boas and his partners did
present some of their conclusions in numerous sum-
mary papers (Boas 1897, 1903, 1905, 1910a, 1910b,
1912, 1925, 1933; Bogoras 1927, 1 929; Jochelson
1 926), but to many later critics, this was too little and
too late (Krupnik 1998).

In retrospect, the expedition's greatest accomplish-
ment was to gather invaluable collections and publish
masses of ethnographic data that documented cul-
tural practices of the North Pacific peoples at a transi-
tional time in their history. Working relationships were
also forged between North American and Russian sci-
entists and institutions that benefited subsequent gen-
erations of scholars. The principle became established
that cultural relations between Asia and North America
had deep roots and could not be understood by re-
searchers working in isolation. The Bering Strait actu-
ally never was a significant geographic or cultural bar-
rier to prehistoric communication and exchange, and
neither should it be for scholars who wish to under-
stand its regional history. The tangled political realities
of the 20th century, however, imposed harsh limita-
tions on the spirit of partnership and cooperation ex-
emplified by the Jesup Expedition.

W. FITZHUGH AND I KRUPNIK

Post-Jesup Research

From our perspective, the Jesup Expedition was a huge
success. The voluminous series, dozens of other publi-
cations in English, German, and Russian, presentations
at international meetings, and large collections of mu-
seum artifacts, photographs, and other resources that
it fostered attracted interest and stimulated new re-
search (Krupnik and Vakhtin 1 997a). While Boas went
on to assume a professorship at Columbia University,
forsaking his curatorial duties (and, eventually, his prom-
ised Jesup Expedition summary volume), he continued
to publish the expedition's field materials. Some of his
Jesup associates the Jochelsons, Swanton, Dixon, and
Smith— expanded their research in the North Pacific to
areas not covered (although originally envisioned) by
the Jesup Expedition (Fig. 3). A few, particularly Jochelson
and Bogoras, developed new support for their earlier
theories. But no new Joint projects of a similar magni-
tude were to follow, and as Soviet power and Stalinist
policies took hold in the Russian Far East, communica-
tion, travel, and collaborative research across the Bering
Strait gradually ceased. By the late 1 930s and the early
1 940s, Russian (Soviet) and western studies of the North
Pacific cultures, restricted by national borders and ideo-
logical constraints, diverged and went their separate
ways (Krupnik 1 998).

As integrated cross-cultural research across the
Bering Strait came to a virtual standstill, the plight of
international scholarship produced an eloquent plea
for cooperative studies by the famous Danish Arctic
explorer Knud Rasmussen. He himself had once been
expelled from Siberia while on a field trip because he
lacked proper visa papers. Calling for a multinational
research program in northeastern Siberia and Alaska
at the Fifth Pacific Science Congress in 1933, only a
few months before his death, Rasmussen predicted, "I
am quite aware that a task like this cannot be brought
to realization in the twinkling of an eye. ... It is, how-
ever, my firm conviction that one day there will be a
great co-operative undertaking of this kind, and that
this plan will be carried out" (Rasmussen 1 934:2772).

Sadly, his proposal, like many others, died as a result
of the harsh political regimes to come.

Although both Russian and American scholars con-
tinued ethnological surveys in their respective regions,
they had begun to recognize the critical need for ar-
chaeological evidence for their general scenarios of
prehistoric connections and culture change. Soon, ar-
chaeologists took the lead, thanks to the advances in
archaeological techniques, the numbers of sites exca-
vated, and the sheer amount of prehistoric artifacts
recovered across the Arctic. Boas had included archae-
ology in the original Jesup Expedition program, but
practical problems, including the relatively early state
of development of archaeological techniques and
theory, limited its contribution (see Thom, this volume).
Fortunately, the Jesup Expedition had stimulated an
awareness of the importance of archaeological inves-
tigation in the Arctic. It was by this means, and through
the later work of Jochelson in the Aleutians, Collins on
St. Lawrence Island, Hrdlicka at Kodiak Island, Jenness
at Cape Prince of Wales, and Larsen and Rainey at Point
Hope, that a more detailed story of North Pacific pre-
history began to unfold during the 1 920s and 1 930s.

With the onset of the Cold War mentality in the late
1 940s, all research cooperation, as well as human con-
tacts, across the Bering Strait ceased. The minimal and
declining competency in the Russian language on the
part of American scholars, and Soviet censorship, en-
sured that little information entered academe across
the Soviet-American frontier. As a result, Russian-Ameri-
can scholarly communications had all but evaporated
by 1 950 (Krupnik 1 998). Nevertheless, important sur-
veys dealing with trans-Beringian archaeology and
physical anthropology by Russian scholars (e.g., Debets
1951; Levin 1958 [1963]; Rudenko 1947 [1961]) and
Western scholars (e.g., Collins 1 937; De Laguna 1 947;
Larsen and Rainey 1948; Laughlin 1952) continued.
These studies clearly documented the divergence of
Russian and Euro-American scholarship in that they in-
volved minimal direct exchanges and recorded few
compatible results.

INTRODUCTION

During the 1950s, new theories on the origins of
the North Pacific peoples and cultures were advanced
that redrew or even rejected the old scenarios of the
Jesup Expedition (see, for example, Chard 1 960; Drucker
1955; Levin 1958 [1963]). None, however, was based
on coordinated field research or on a compatible set
of field data collected on two continents, which had
been the inspiration for Boas and his partners.

As a result of post-Jesup research, the "Paleoasiatic"
peoples of northeastern Siberia (called "Americanoids"
in some of the Jesup Expedition-based publications)
are no longer believed to have originated in North
America or to constitute a coherent entity of their own.
Nor are the Eskimo [Yup'ikand Ihupiat] people in Alaska
and Siberia considered to be a relatively recent Cana-
dian "wedge" that split the initial continuum of coastal
North Pacific groups from Kamchatka to Oregon. Cul-
tural similarities between the Native peoples across
northeastern Siberia, the Northwest Coast of North
America, and southern Alaska exist, but their origin—
by migration, cultural transfer or diffusion, or conver-
gent development— is not known.

As these examples show, the complexities of North
Pacific cultural history are now recognized as immense,
especially since Alaska has been occupied for at least
1 2,000 years and eastern Siberia for 40,000 years or
more. Given this demonstrated complexity and the
probability that people have been moving back and
forth across the Bering Strait with ease for at least
1 0,000 years (see Fortescue 1 998), it is ironic that
many archaeologists, bio-anthropologists, and linguists
continue to be impressed by three-stage models of
New World prehistory (see Greenberg 1 987; Turner
1 988). There is hardly a possibility of simple migration
theories or scenarios of massive population or cultural
transfers across the North Pacific, such as those ad-
vanced by the Jesup Expedition team a century ago.

Gateways to Jesup 2

Beginning in the 1970s, initiatives by the International
Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) began to rebuild

a bridge for bilateral Russian-American exchange in the
North Pacific. The effort included research visits, con-
ferences, publications, and even some limited instances
of Joint fieldwork (Campbell 1976; Gurvich 1981;
Laughlin 1980: 70-4, 1985; Laughlin and Okladnikov
1975; Michael 1979; Michael and VanStone 1983).
These events drew North American and Russian re-
searchers in Arctic and Pacific studies into their first
substantial contacts since the 1930s. Personal friend-
ships were forged and research partnerships were once
again established, although lengthy visits and joint field
surveys were all but impossible. These early connec-
tions eventually culminated in the exhibit Crossroads
of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska (1 988),
produced jointly by the Smithsonian Institution's Na-
tional Museum of Natural History and the Soviet (now
Russian) Institute of Ethnography and Museum of An-
thropology and Ethnography in St. Petersburg (Fitzhugh
and Crowell 1 988). The exhibit traveled throughout
North America during 1 988-92. Featuring an integrated
view of North Pacific cultures. Crossroads of Continents
served as a visual ethnography and a preliminary syn-
thesis of the area first covered by the Jesup Expedition
surveys. It also highlighted the expedition's principal
findings and the outcomes of anthropological research
of the intervening 90 years.

In addition to incorporating Jesup Expedition col-
lections from the AMNH, the joint exhibit and its cata-
log featured early Russian collections from Alaska of
the 1 800s and Alaskan materials from the Smithsonian
and other North American museums. The Crossroads
project served as a meetingplace for large numbers of
American, Canadian, Russian, and European scholars
over a 1 5-year period from 1 978 to 1 993. This long-
term exhibit venture, its numerous symposia, and its
curatorial, conservation, publication, and education pro-
grams (Fitzhugh and Chaussonnet 1 994; Fitzhugh and
Crowell 1 988; Johnson etal. 1991 ; Sadler and Greenberg
1 989) offered new possibilities for direct communica-
tion among dozens of researchers working on both
sides of the North Pacific divide.

W. FITZHUGH AND I. KRUPNIK

As Smithsonian scientists were building theirCrass-
roads exhibit and scientific collaboration network, cu-
rators at the AMNH in New York launched their own
venture in the Jesup Expedition legacy. Their efforts
were focused on exploring and exhibiting the magnifi-
cent AMNH collections of the indigenous cultures and
art of the Northwest Coast. The AMNH program, which
started in the 1 980s, produced the Chiefly Feasts ex-
hibit on the vibrant spiritual traditions of the
Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI] people, based on the
objects and data collected by Boas and his partners
during the Jesup Expedition. It also generated several
volumes and papers focused on the expedition's ac-
tivities, collections, and participants (Freed et al. 1 988a,
1 988b, 1 988c; Jonaitis 1 988, 1 991 , 1 992, 1 999). Other
research projects were soon to follow or were ad-
vanced independently (Cole 1985;jacknis 1984;Jantz
1 995; Jantz et al. 1 992; Ousley 1 995). This triggered a
revived interest in Franz Boas' academic legacy and
career (Berman 1 992; Stocking 1 992), including a spe-
cial issue of Ewdes/lnuit/SwdiesiSur les traces de Boas:
100 ans d'antmpologie des Inu it/In Boas' Footsteps:
One Hundred Years of Inuit Anthropology, 1 984), and
led to the first detailed studies on JNPE participants
such as George Hunt and James Teit who had received
little attention during their lifetimes (Berman 1994;
Cannizzo 1983;Jacknis 1991, 1992; Maud 1989;
Wickwire 1988). By the early 1990s, the Jesup Expedi-
tion saga, its collections, and the life stories of its team
members had emerged as a thriving field of research
and museum activity in North America and Russia alike.

Additional trans-Beringian exchanges and scholarly
and exhibit projects were launched in the early 1 990s
(see, for example, Durr et al. 1992; Smith and Barrett
1 990; Varjola 1 990). In 1 991 the Alaskan Office of the
U.S. National Park Service initiated the Shared Beringian
Heritage Program for research and cultural exchanges
along the Siberian and Alaskan shores of the Bering
Strait, under the framework of the proposed Beringia
International Park. In 1 993 a new "mini-Crossroads" trav-
eling exhibit. Crossroads Alaska/Siberia, was organized

by the Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Center together
with key Alaskan and Siberian museums. For several
years (1 993-97), it toured to many regional centers in
Alaska and the Russian Far East (Chaussonnet 1995;
Chaussonnet and Krupnik 1996; National Museum of
Natural History 1997).

Today, a new generation of scholars is actively
recharting the course of North Pacific/Beringian stud-
ies, and an impressive volume of archaeological re-
search has been amassed. Still, despite much new work,
the larger perspectives of culture history, the origins of
North Pacific cultures, and the dynamics of prehistoric
culture change in the Greater Northern Pacific Region
remain almost as subject to dispute as they were at
the end of the Jesup Expedition. (Of course, the same
can be said of other anthropological fields.) We are left
today with hardly any firm evidence beyond the past
500-1 ,000 years for interpreting the culture history of
this region and of its amazing linguistic, biological, folk-
loristic, and ethnological diversity. Despite volumes of
new scholarship, the basic documents on which we
rely for North Pacific ethnography date back to the
classic 1 9th-century studies on the Northwest Coast
and Siberia alike. It is obvious that the ground has
been laid for reassessment of the Jesup Expedition
legacy in the light of modern knowledge. We now
face the need to build new relationships and to train
and equip new students in the field. A shared scientific
language needs to be created, after two generations
of scholarly isolation, and new sources of funding for
joint research ventures must be secured.

As official barriers to communication across the
Bering Strait were relaxed after 1 988, new airline routes
and connections, joint commercial and educational
enterprises, direct phone and fax lines, e-mail, and many
other developments emerged. A steady stream of
Native and scholarly contacts across the North Pacific
area was soon to follow, paralleling the pattern, if not
the intensity, of ancient trans-Beringian contacts. The
North Pacific is a natural and active crossroads be-
tween Asia and North America; it must have been so

INTRODUCTION

ever since the first peoples migrated into what was
then, 12,000-1 5,000 years ago, truly a "new world."
Since then, meetings, migrations, intermarriages, trad-
ing, fighting, exploring, and getting lost and being
found by neighbors have occurred more or less con-
tinuously over the millennia, except for some brief pe-
riods of isolation. The 50-year-long break of the past
century was probably the most effective barrier ever
imposed, and the hardest to overcome.

Jesup 2 Beginnings

In 1992— almost 100 years after Boas, Frederic W.
Putnam (head of the AMNH Department of Anthropol-
ogy), and Jesup had begun their first discussions on
the proposed survey of the North Pacific region— the
Arctic Studies Center of the Smithsonian Institution
advanced a blueprint for new long-term research to-
ward these same goals. The proposed venture was
called Jesup 2, as a centennial and intellectual succes-
sor to the (first) Jesup North Pacific Expedition of 1 897-
1902 (AAAS 1992; Fitzhugh and Krupnik 1994).

The new initiative, which was undertaken concur-
rently with the approaching (1997) centennial of the
Jesup Expedition, was submitted in 1 992 at a special
session at the First Congress of the International Arctic
Social Sciences Association (lASSA) in Quebec (Fitzhugh
and Krupnik 1992). The symposium's title, "Jesup 2:
Survival, Continuity, and Culture Change in the North
Pacific Region," became the core framework for sev-
eral individual and Joint research ventures now com-
monly recognized as "Jesup centennial activities."

Three successive symposia were organized follow-
ing the initial panel of 1992. The first, "Gateways to
Jesup 2: Evaluating Archival Resources of the Jesup North
Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902," took place in 1993,
at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Anthro-
pological Association in Washington, D.C. Participants
from the United States, Canada, and Russia reviewed
unknown or poorly studied museum, archival, photo-
graphic, manuscript, and other collections and raw data
originating from the Jesup North Pacific Expedition (AAA

1 993). This volume is the result of the "Gateways" sym-
posium. The second session, "Cultural Continuity and
Change in the North Pacific Region," was organized at
the "Bridges of Science" joint conference held by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) in
Anchorage, Alaska, in 1 994. In November 1 997 a con-
ference celebrating the Jesup centennial, "Construct-
ing Cultures Then and Now. Celebrating Franz Boas
and the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902,"
was held at the AMNH, the birthplace of the Jesup
Expedition. This five-day international conference
brought together an impressive team of over 50 schol-
ars, museum curators, and Native cultural workers from
North America, Russia, Europe, and Japan and was by
far the largest and most representative gathering of
people active in "Jesup area" research (Graburn 1 998;
Lee 1998). An exhibit of historical photographs and
some ethnographic objects collected by the expedi-
tion was organized at the AMNH, and a wonderful
catalog. Drawing Shadows to Stone (Kendall et al.
1997), was produced for the opening of the centen-
nial celebration. The volume of conference proceed-
ings is now in preparation for the same AMNH series
that also contains the volumes of the original Jesup
Expedition (Kendall and Krupnik n.d.). A similar Russian
conference took place in Vladivostok, in the Russian
Far East, in April 1 998 (Artem'ev 1 998).

The new venture was initially designed to be sus-
tained by a scattered community of international schol-
ars (Fitzhugh and Krupnik 1994:2), instead of being,
like its famous predecessor, a centralized project with
an established budget and defined responsibilities. As
a result of the loose structure, many research and pub-
lic activities have been initiated or have been supported
by individual research and museum institutions. A new
bibliography is gradually being accumulated (e.g.,
Fitzhugh 1996; lARPC 1995; Krupnik 1998, 2000;
Mandelstam Balzer 1 996; Vakhtin 1 993). Four recently
published books are outgrowths of the Jesup centen-
nial efforts (Artem'ev 1 998;Jochelson 1 997; Kendall et

W. FITZHUGH AND I. KRUPNIK

al. 1997; Shternberg 1999), and two more volumes
are in press or in preparation (Ivanov-Unarov and
Ivanova, in press; Kendall and Krupnik n.d.). Several in-
ternational projects documenting cultural continuity
and the modern revival of Native nations first surveyed
by the Jesup Expedition were completed during the
1990s, including an international seminar, "Develop-
ment and Self-Determination among the Indigenous
Peoples of the North," held in Alaska in October 1996
(see reviews in Stern et al. 1 997). Scores of new publi-
cations have been directly linked to or inspired by the
Jesup centennial agenda (e.g., Fitzhugh and Dubreuil
1999; Kan 2000; Kasten 1996; Krupnik 1996, 1998,
2000; Krupnik and Vakhtin 1 997b; Ousley 2000; Roon
2000; Schweitzer and Colovko 1995; Thom 2000).

These successful public activities and exchanges
relating to the Jesup centennial brought together schol-
ars, museum curators, and Native cultural activists from
the two sides of the North Pacific in an effort that per-
haps deserves the name Jesup 2. Progress in communi-
cation and broad network-building is clearly the big-
gest current advantage over our "First Jesup" prede-
cessors, who often needed months (and sometimes
years) to get their messages from New York to Russia/
Siberia or Alaska and back.

New Research Targets

As the world enters the new millennium, scholars and
the public alike are concerned with the dramatic out-
comes of the past century and the legacy it will leave
to future generations. Issues of environmental degra-
dation, pollution, loss of species, and ecosystem in-
tegrity are currently of major concern to the broad
constituency of natural scientists, public activists, and
politicians. Both Native leaders and social scientists
express a similar set of concerns with regard to human
cultural diversity and the rights of local populations
and cultures. Government policies, industrialization, and
the spread of consumerism have damaged indigenous
subsistence and languages worldwide; they have also
undermined traditional arts and crafts and distorted

the cultural continuity and ethnic diversity of Native
peoples on an unprecedented, global scale.

Despite the differences in political systems, in many
respects 20th-century developments in Siberia and in
Alaska and the Northwest Coast produced surprisingly
similar results. Both areas have recently experienced
revivals of indigenous cultures and sweeping drives
for Native political empowerment, land rights, and self-
determination. The movement has been far more suc-
cessful in Alaska and Canada than in Siberia but is also
gaining momentum there. Both in the Russian Far East
and along the Northwest Coast of North America, cul-
tural and language survival. Native rights, education
policy, and economic and political issues are looming
as major concerns on local agendas for the new cen-
tury. The challenges to Native cultures are mounting,
since in many northern communities Native languages
have been weakened or lost, poverty has increased,
subsistence economies have been weakened, and al-
coholism and social disorders remain significant threats
to physical and communal well-being.

As a tool for evaluating the current pace of change,
the North Pacific region already has a baseline data set
produced by the Jesup Expedition exactly a century
ago. A new effort should be made to produce a sum-
mary of indigenous cultural continuity (and losses) dur-
ing the past century. Through the example of theJNPE's
method and organization, new efforts can be initiated
to conduct a reanalysis of the JNPE field and its archival
data, to concentrate new surveys in the same geo-
graphic area, to ensure data comparability, to facili-
tate studies of centennial culture change, and to en-
courage cross-cultural comparison.

A centennial-focused assessment of old and new
data on cultural relationships and continuity may pro-
vide invaluable assistance to native communities and
policy groups. It is now axiomatic that such studies
should be carried out in cooperation with and on be-
half of Native constituencies, with the aim of encour-
aging local educational, cultural, and professional de-
velopment. The standard practice is certainly to take

INTRODUCTION

ethical considerations into account in such work. Such
studies, and concrete implementation of their major
outcomes, are particularly urgent throughout the Rus-
sian part of the North Pacific region, where the recent
political transition and the shift to a market economy
have left many Native communities in a more desti-
tute situation than under the Soviet communist regime.
We hope this volume will serve as a catalyst for these
scholarly and practical endeavors.

The Focus of This Volume

As noted, Boas never completed his assigned task of
synthesizing data from the Siberian and Northwest
American field surveys into a final volume for the Jesup
Expedition publication series. For this reason, the JNPE
has been viewed as an inconclusive, though signifi-
cant, event in the history of North American anthropol-
ogy (Cole 1999; Darnell 1998). Unfortunately, Boas'
last (and practically his only) general review of the
expedition's outcomes, methodology, and theoretical
framework was presented in German in 1908 as the
opening address at the 1 6th International Congress of
Americanists in Vienna (Boas 1 91 Ob). It is still unknown
why such a milestone paper has never been published
in English. Whatever the reason, it remained out of sight
for generations of English-speaking scholars in North
Pacific research. These and other factors eventually side-
lined the JNPE from the mainstream of scholarly ad-
vances in anthropological theory and field practice. To
restore a rather belated justice to the JNPE efforts, and
for the record of its founding father, we include here a
modern translation of Boas' seminal Vienna address of
1908 (see Boas, this volume). There is no doubt that
Boas was fully aware of the great methodological and
theoretical value of the JNPE multidisciplinary approach
and of its input to the study of human cultural devel-
opment in the most general sense.

It is uniformly recognized, however, that the Jesup
Expedition did achieve a more restricted goal of pro-
ducing a set of "classical" ethnographic monographs
on many groups of the North Pacific region. With Boas'

resignation from his position at the AMNH after increas-
ing tensions between him and Jesup led to his depar-
ture for Columbia University in 1905 (see Cole, this
volume; Darnell 1970:21 1-4), the "final chapter" and
the overall evaluation of the legacy of the JNPE have
been left for others to complete.

At the centennial of the Jesup Expedition era, a
more dedicated and multifaceted appraisal is needed.
What can be said now about Boas' theoretical motiva-
tions in organizing the Jesup Expedition? How can this
be tested against the general intellectual discourse and
the dominant anthropological paradigms of the era? In
particular, the Boasian perspective on "culture" has
sparked a new debate and is currently the subject of
extensive scholarly reevaluation (see, for example,
Berman 1 996; Bunzl 1 996; Darnell 1 998; Jacknis 1 996;
Liss 1995; Stocking 1992, 1996). In this sense, the
results of the century-old Jesup Expedition surveys
across Beringia and the Greater North Pacific Region
are as fresh in our own time as they were in Boas' day.

This volume is the first summary of such a centen-
nial reappraisal effort. It is an outgrowth of the "Gate-
ways to Jesup 2" panel that was organized by the
volume coeditors at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the
American Anthropological Association in Washington,
D.C., in 1 993. A few of the nine original papers from
the AAA panel do not appear in this volume, while
some new contributions— those byCole,Thom, Krupnik,
and Willey— were submitted after the session. Abridged
versions of two papers from this collection appeared
earlier in a special issue of the European Review of
Native American Sfurf/es under the editorship of Chris-
tian Feest (Kan 2000; Thom 2000).

This volume thus initiates the process of a modern
reappraisal of some of the less recognized aspects of
the JNPE legacy that extend far beyond its voluminous
publications and ethnographic collections of a cen-
tury ago. The task leads us into three separate aspects
of JNPE historiography: (a) the origins and intellectual
background of the expedition; (b) a critical assess-
ment of its fieldwork and collection practices; and

W. FITZHUCH AND I. KRUPNIK

(c) its various archival legacies, which provide a last-
ing trove of documentary evidence for analysis of the
expedition's results. The contributions in this volume
are organized to emphasize such a progression.

Part 1 , "The Expedition," with contributions by Cole
and Vakhtin, explores the intellectual roots of the Jesup
Expedition and presents an informative historical coun-
terpoint that aids in assessing the complexity of the
project and its final outcomes. Douglas Cole— who
passed away in August 1 997, a few months before
the Jesup Centennial Conference in New York (see "In
Memory of below)— produced the most detailed up-
date of the completeJNPE multiyear saga. His approach
proceeds from the perspective of the Boas-Jesup rela-
tionship and what each was hoping to achieve. "Pure
science" and museum goals were clearly juxtaposed,
and ultimately, the outcome favored the museum's
priorities more than those of science. Nikolai Vakhtin
offers valuable insights on the less-known record of
the assembly of the Siberian portion of the JNPE, which
was in certain ways a more radical scientific venture
than what was done on the American Northwest Coast.
Of the two. Cole's perspective is more critical of Boas'
motivations and tactics, and of the end results that
leaned in favor of Morris Jesup's expectations.

Part 2, "The Collectors," with papers by Harkin,
Mathe and Miller, Thorn, and Berman, presents mod-
ernist perspectives on the field approaches of the Jesup
Expedition, particularly from the point of view of re-
searcher-Native relationships. It is hard to imagine less
congruent sets of data— textual records, photographs,
and archaeological excavations— yet combined, they
reinvigorate the image of the interdisciplinary and pio-
neeringJNPE research. Harkin examines Boas' fieldwork
among central Northwest Coast groups in the context
of his training in German Romantic and liberal social
science thought, in which texts and myth rather than
history determine cultural content. Mathe and Miller
review the photographic practices of the JNPE team
members from the modern perspective, which directs
attention to the "framing" (even the "staging") of the

ethnographic reality, as well as the power/status in-
terplay of the photographers and their human sub-
jects. Thom's paper is a modern archival chronicle of
archaeological work conducted by Harlan Smith along
the southern Northwest Coast between 1 897 and
1 899. This was a region in which Boas expected ar-
chaeological data to reveal significant evidence of his-
torical change. Smith's finds importantly reinforced
Boas' mistaken view that archaeology, linguistics, oral
history, and culture could be combined into a single
unified thesis of North Pacific (pre-)history. Smith's pre-
viously unstudied archival documents reveal a human
context for this early archaeological research and
shows how social relationships, good and bad, shaped
his and Boas' conclusions about regional prehistory in
ways that are not evident in the published JNPE re-
ports. Finally, Berman offers a new perspective on the
Boas-Hunt collaboration and on George Hunt's contri-
bution to the JNPE and later documentation efforts. In
a detailed review of the unpublished manuscripts from
Boas' and Hunt's monumental corpus of Kwak-
waka'wakw [KwakuitI] texts, she unveils an intricate
and often conflicting play of human and professional
relationships that were never disclosed in their volumi-
nous folkloric and ethnographic writings.

Part 3, "The Resources," with papers by Kan, Ousley
and Jantz, Keeling, Krupnik, and Willey, presents a se-
ries of new studies of both known and "rediscovered"
materials produced during or after the expedition. The
list ranges from Kan's story of the painful saga of Leo
Shternberg's manuscript on Gilyak [Nivkh] social orga-
nization that was produced for, but never published
in, the JNPE series, to the modern appraisal by Ousley
and Jantz of the monumentalJNPE corpus of anthropo-
metric measurements that was duly collected but nei-
ther processed nor published in Boas' time, to Keeling's
analysis of the expedition's ethnomusicological legacy,
preserved on old wax-cylinder recordings.

Next, Krupnik demonstrates the overall impact of
the Jesup Expedition in a comprehensive bibliography
of its published and unpublished writings. This record

INTRODUCTION

alone fully validates the JNPE's preeminent role in the
history of regional and theoretical studies in anthro-
pology and culture change. It furnishes strong support
to those of us who believe that the JNPE did establish
an unprecedented and monumental record of anthro-
pological documentation. In a similar way, Willey's
paper provides a comprehensive review of the
expedition's photographic record of some 3,500 his-
torical images that are now catalogued and organized
thematically in the AMNH Special Collections files. There
is clearly more grist to grind here, both for those inter-
ested in regional scholarship and for those seeking to
build on the vision of trans-Beringian contacts and his-
tory begun by Boas and his partners.

Editors' Notes

A few technical comments will be helpful to readers in
matching the old realities of the Jesup Expedition era
with today's practices in anthropological publications.
The names of the Russian members of the expedition,
including Waldemar Bogoras, Waldemar Jochelson, his
wife, Dina Jochelson (Jochelson-Brodsky), and Leo
Shternberg, have been spelled in many different ways
in various languages. Throughout the volume, we fol-
low the long-established spelling used in their English
publications and in major reference bibliographies:
Bogoras, Jochelson, Jochelson-Brodsky, and Shternberg.
Some references to Russian or German publications
and personal correspondence, however, preserve the
forms used in the respective languages: Bogoraz,
Jochelson-Brodskaya, and Sternberg. In certain sections
the Russian spelling— for example, Bogoraz instead of
Bogoras— is preserved to underline the Russian setting
of the story.

In this volume, as well as in several other publica-
tions by the Arctic Studies Center, we adhere to the
commonly accepted practice of presenting Native
ethnic and tribal names as singulars (Eskimo, Chukchi,
Koryak, Aleut, etc.) instead of plurals. We generally use
modern names in contemporary text; for example,
Chukchi, Yukagir, and Nivkh instead of the names

W. FITZHUCH AND I. KRUPNIK

Chukchee, Yukaghir, and Gilyak that were common
during the Jesup Expedition era. We do keep the old
names when referring to the Jesup Expedition volumes
and to the subsequently produced publications. Sev-
eral ethnic names, both in Siberia and in North America
(for example, Eskimo, Tungus, Kamchadal, KwakiutI, and
Thompson), have been abandoned or have become
obsolete since the time of the Jesup Expedition. We
introduce modern names (InuitorVup'ik, Even, Itelmen,
Kwakwaka'wakw, NIaka'pamux) wherever appropri-
ate, but we usually allow the authors to follow the
name patterns now accepted by local communities in
their respective areas.

This book is illustrated by numerous original pho-
tographs from thejesup Expedition era, including many
taken by the expedition field crews in Siberia and North
America. We are grateful to the JNPE's host institution,
the American Museum of Natural History in New York,
for permission to reproduce these precious historical
images. Special thanks go to Barbara Mathe, head of
the Special Collections division at the AMNH Library,
who was instrumental in selecting and securing most
of the illustrations on the AMNH files. Some other illus-
trations—individual photographs, copies of field
sketches, personal notes, etc. are reproduced from
the originals on file at the American Philosophical Soci-
ety in Philadelphia; the Archives of the Russian Acad-
emy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia; the Peter the
Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, also
in St. Petersburg; and the Hudson's Bay Company Ar-
chives in the Provincial Archives of Manitoba. (See the
List of Illustrations.) We thank all the institutions that
granted us permission to use these documents as il-
lustrations in our Jesup centennial collection.

Acknowledgments

This volume's progress was by no means smooth and
easy, and, like many of the proceedings of the JNPE,
it suffered several setbacks— although, of course, for
different reasons. The full manuscript was completed
and submitted for publication in 1 997. Dori Stewart

1 1

provided invaluable assistance in preparing that ver-
sion. We praise her heroic contributions in formatting
into a single editorial cast the 1 1 original papers (and
disks), delivered with unimaginable individual variations.
Three years later, Elisabeth Ward of the Arctic Studies
Center undertook the challenging task of breathing
new life into a long-dormant venture. She skillfully co-
ordinated the uneasy process of updating the papers
and again editing the volume, with professional assis-
tance from Nancy Levine. Last but not least, we want
to thank all the contributors for their support, patience,
and dedication. Their trust and commitment helped us
persevere through years of delays and withered hopes
to see this volume finally published under the Arctic
Studies Center's newly established Conthbutioms to
CircumpolarAnthmpologySerles.

References

AAA (American Anthropological Association)

1993 Gateways to Jesup II: Evaluating Archival Re-
sources of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1 897-
1 902. In American Anthropological Association An-
nual Meeting, 92. Abstracts. Pp. 40-1 . Washington,
DC.

AAAS (American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science)

1992 Arctic Research Repeats History. Science

256:163.
Artem'ev, A. R., ed.

1998 Istoriko-kul'turnye sviazi mezhdu korennym
naseleniem tikhookeanskogo poberezhiia Severo-
Zapadnoi Ameriki i Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. K 100-
letiiu Jesupovskoi Severo-Tikhookeanskoi ekspeditsii
(Historical-cultural contacts between aborigines of
the Pacific Coast of Northwestern America and North-
eastern Asia. For the centenary of the Jesup North
Pacific Expedition). Proceedings of international con-
ference. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeol-
ogy, and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East.

Berman, Judith

1 992 Oolanchan-Woman's Robe: Fish, Blankets, Masks,
and Meaning in Boas's Kwak'wala Texts. In On the
Translation of Native American Literature. B. Swann,
ed. Pp. 1 25-62. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-
tution Press.

1 994 George Hunt and the Kwak'wala Texts. Anthro-
pological Linguistics 36(4):482-51 4.

1 996 "The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-
self": Boas, George Hunt, and the Methods of

Ethnography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Es-
says on Boasian Ethnography and the German An-
thropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed.
Pp. 215-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Boas, Franz

1897 Die Jesup-Boas-Expedition nach Nordwest-
Amerika. Globus 2] .342.

1 903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American
Museum Journal 3(5):73-l 1 9.

1 905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-
tional Gongress of Americanists, 1 3th Session, Held
in New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:
Eschenbach.

1 91 Oa Ethnological Problems in Canada.Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 40:529-39. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1910b Die Resultate der Jesup-Expedition. In
Internationalen Americanisten-Kongress, 16. Tagung,
Wien 1908. ErsteHdIfte. Pp. 3-1 8. Vienna and Leipzig:
A. Hartleben's Verlag.

1 91 2 The History of the American Race. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 21:1 77-83.

1 925 America and the Old World. In Congres Interna-
tional des Americanistes, Gompte-Rendue de la 2le
Session, Deuxieme Partie. Tenue a Coteborg en 1 924.
Pp. 21-8. Gotebord Museum.

1933 Relations between North-West America and
North-East Asia. In The American Aborigines: Their
Origin and Antiquity. D. Jenness, ed. Pp. 357-70.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1 927 Drevnie pereseleniia narodov v Severnoi Azii i v
Amerike (Ancient human migrations in northern Asia
and in America). Sbornik Muzeia antropologii i
etnografii 6:37-62. Leningrad.

1 929 Elements of the Culture of the Circumpolar Zone.
American Anthropologist 31(4): 579-601.

Bunzl, Matt!

1 996 Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: From
Volksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropo-
logical Concept of Culture. In Volksgeist as Method
and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the
German Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stock-
ing, Jr., ed. Pp. 1 7-78. Madison: University of Wiscon-
sin Press.

Campbell, John M.

1 976 The Soviet-American Siberian Expedition. Arctic

Anthropology 29(l):3-6.
Cannizzo, Jeanne

1 983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-
ture. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-
ogy 200):44-S8.

Chard, Chester S.

1 960 Northwest Coast-Northeast Asiatic Similarities:

INTRODUCTION

A New Hypothesis. In Men and Cultures: Selected
Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthro-
pological and Ethnological Sciences, 1 956. Anthony
F. C. Wallace, ed. Pp. 235-40. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Chaussonnet, Valerie, ed.

1995 Crossroads Alaska: Native Cultures of Alaska
and Siberia. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Chaussonnet, Valerie, comp., and Igor I.
Krupnik, ed.

1996 Perekrestki kontinentov: Kul'tury korennykh
narodov Dal'nego Vostoka iAIiaski. Katalog vystavki
(Crossroads of continents: Cultures of native peoples
of the [Russian] Far East and Alaska). Exhibit catalog.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution; Moscow:
Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage of Russia.

Cole, Douglas

1 985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest
Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington
Press

1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.
Collins, Henry B.

1937 Archaeology of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 96(1). Wash-
ington, DC.

Darnell, Regna D.

1 970 The Development of American Anthropology
1879-1920: From the Bureau of American Ethnol-
ogy to Franz Boas. Ph. D. diss., University of Pennsyl-
vania, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor, Ml: University Micro-
films, Inc.

1 998 And Along Came Boas: Continuity and Revolu-
tion in Americanist Anthropology. Amsterdam Stud-
ies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science.
Series III, Studies in the History of the Language Sci-
ences, 86. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Debets, Georgii F.

1951 Antropologicheskie issledovaniia v Kamchatskoi
oblasti (Physical-anthropological surveys in
Kamchatka Province). Trudy Instituta etnografii AN
SSSR, 17. Moscow.

De Laguna, Frederica

1 947 The Prehistory of Northern North America as
Seen from the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society for
American Archaeology, 3. Salt Lake City.

Drucker, Philip

1955 Sources of Northwest Coast Culture. In New
Interpretations of Aboriginal American Culture His-
tory. Pp. 59-81. Washington, DC: Anthropological
Society of Washington.

Diirr, Michael, Erich Kasten, and Egon Renner,

eds.

1 992 Franz Boas: Ethnologe, Anthropologe und

Sprachwissenschaftler: Ein Wegbereiter der modernen
Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Berlin: Staatsbibliothek.
Fitzhugh, William W.

1988 Baird's Naturalists: Smithsonian Collectors in
Alaska. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Si-
beria and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron
Crowell, eds. Pp. 89-96. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.

1 994 Crossroads of Continents: Review and Prospects.
In Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim. William W.
Fitzhugh and Valerie Chaussonnet, eds. Pp. 27-52.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1 996 Jesup II: Anthropology of the North Pacific. North-
ern Notes 4:4] -62. Hanover, NH.

Fitzhugh William W., and Valerie

Chaussonnet, eds.

1 994 Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim. Wash-
ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell, eds.

1 988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia
and Alaska. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Chisato O. Dubreuil,
eds.

1 999 Ainu: Spirit of a Northern People. Washington,
DC: National Museum of Natural History; Seattle: Uni-
versity of Washington Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Igor Krupnik

1 992 "Jesup-2": New Interdisciplinary Perspective on
the Anthropology of the Beringia/North Pacific Area.
Manuscript. Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Insti-
tution, Washington, DC.

1994 The Jesup II Research Initiative: Anthropological
Studies in the North Pacific. Arctic Studies Center
Newsletter (jesup II Newsbrief). Washington, DC: Arc-
tic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution.

Fortescue, Michael

1 998 Language Relations across Bering Strait: Reap-
praising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence.
London and New York: Cassel.

Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila

Williamson

1988a The American Museum's Jesup North Pacific
Expedition. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of
Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron
Crowell, eds. Pp. 97-103. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

1 988b Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-
aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902).
American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

1 988c Scholars amid Squalor. Natural History97(3):60-
8.

Graburn, Nelson H. H.

1 998 Constructing Cultures Then and Now. Ameri-
can Anthropologist 1 00(4): 1 009-1 3.

W. FITZHUGH AND I. KRUPNIK

Greenberg, Joseph H.

1987 Language in the Amehcas. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.
Gurvich, ll'ia S., ed.

1 981 Traditsionnye kul'Wry Sevemoi Sibih i Severnoi
/Amen7(/ CTraditional cultures of North Siberia and North
America). Papers from the Soviet-American Sympo-
sium, 1979. Moscow: Nauka.

lARPC (Interagency Arctic Research Policy

Committee)

1 995 U.S. Arctic Research Plan Biennial Revision: 1 996-
2000. Arctic Research of the United States 9 (spring).

Ivanov-Unarov, Vladimir Kh., and Zinaida
Ivanova, eds.

In press. Vladimir I. loi<helson. lukagiry i iul<agizirovannye
tungusy(Jhe Yukagir and the yukagirized Tungus).
Yakutsk: Sapipolis. [Translation of the original
Jochelson monograph, The Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3, 1910-26. Memoirs of the
American Museum of Natural History, 1 3.]

Jacknis, Ira

1 984 Franz Boas and Photography. Studies in Visual
Communication iO(l):2-60.

1 991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. In
Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.
Aldona Jonaitis. ed. Pp. 1 77-224. Seattle: University
of Washington Press; New York: American Museum
of Natural History.

1 992 George Hunt, KwakiutI Photographer. In Anthro-
pology and Photography, 1860-1920. Elizabeth
Edwards, ed. Pp. 143-51. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press in association with the Royal
Anthropological Institute.

1 996 The Ethnographic Object and the Object of Eth-
nology in the Early Career of Franz Boas. In Volksgeist
as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnogra-
phy and the German Anthropological Tradition.
George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 185-214. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Jantz, Richard L, ed.

1 995 The Population Biology of Late Nineteenth-Cen-
tury Native North Americans and Siberians: Analysis
of Boas' Data. Special issue. Human Biology 67(3).

Jantz, Richard L., David R. Hunt, Anthony B.

Falsetti, and Patrick J. Key

1992 Variations among North Amerindians: Analysis
of Boas' Anthropometric Data. Human Biology
64(3):435-61.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1 926 The Ethnological Problems of Bering Sea. /S/ofu-
ra/H/sforK26(l):90-5.

1997 Koriaki: MateriaTnaia kul'tura i sotsial'naia
organizatsiia (The Koryak: Material culture and so-
cial organization). St. Petersburg: Nauka. [Translation
of the Jochelson monograph, The Jesup North Pacific

Expedition, vol. 6, pt. 2, 1 908. Memoirs of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History, 1 0.]

Johnson, Kirk R., Leo J. Mickey, and Cynthia

Adams Hoover, eds.

1 991 Crossroads of Continents: The Material Culture
of Siberia and Alaska. Report of a Yale-Smithsonian
Seminar on Material Culture, 1 989. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution; New Haven: Yale University.

Jonaitis, Aldona

1 988 From the Land of the Totem Poles. The North-
west Coast Indian Art Collection at the American
Museum of Natural History. New York: American Mu-
seum of Natural History; Seattle: University of Wash-
ington Press.

1991 Chiefly Feasts: The Creation of an Exhibit. In
Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.
Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Pp. 21-70. Seattle: University of
Washington Press; New York: AMNH.

1992 Franz Boas, John Swanton, and the New Haida
Sculpture at the American Museum of Natural His-
tory. In The Early Years of Native American Art His-
tory: The Politics of Scholarship and Collecting.]. C.
Berlo, ed. Pp. 22-61. Seattle: University of Washing-
ton Press; Vancouver: UBC Press.

1999 The Yuquot Whalers' Shrine. Seattle: University
of Washington Press.

Kan, Sergei

2000 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph: Or, Why
Shternberg's "The Social Organization of the Gilyak"
Never Appeared among the Jesup Expedition Publi-
cations. European Review of Native American Stud-
ies 14(2): 19-38.

Kasten, Erich

1996 Politische Organisation bei nordpazifischen
Kustenvolkern. In Kulturen und Innovationen:
Festschrift fur Wolfgang Rudolph. G. Elwert, J.Jensen,
and I. Kortt, eds. Pp. 293-320. Berlin; Duncker und
Humblot.

Kendall, Laurel, and Igor Krupnik, eds.

n.d. Constructing Cultures Then and Now: Celebrating
Franz Boas and the Centenary of the Jesup North
Pacific Expedition, 1 897-1 902, vo\. ]. Historical Per-
spectives. In preparation.

Kendall, Laurel, Barbara Mathe, and Thomas

R. Miller, eds.

1 997 Drawing Shadows to Stone: The Photography
of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1 897- 1 902.
New York: American Museum of Natural History; Se-
attle: University of Washington Press.

Krupnik, Igor

1 996 The "Bogoras Enigma": Bounds of Culture and
Formats of Anthropologists. In Grasping the Chang-
ing World: Anthropological Concepts in the
Postmodern Era. Vaslav Hubinger, ed. Pp. 35-52.
London: Routledge.

INTRODUCTION

1998 "Jesup Genealogy": Intellectual Partnership and
Russian-American Cooperation in Arctic/North
Pacific Anthropology (from the Jesup Expedition to
the Cold War, 1897-1948). Arctic Anthropology
35(2):1 99-226.

2000 Jesup-2: The Precious Legacy and a Centennial
Perspective. European Review of Native American
Studies 14(2): 1-2.

Krupnik, Igor, and Nikolay Vakhtin

1 997a "The Aim of the Expedition . . . Has in the Main
Been Accomplished": Words, Deeds, and Legacies
of the Jesup Expedition. Paper presented at the cen-
tennial conference "Constructing Cultures Then and
Now." New York

1 997b Indigenous Knowledge in Modern Culture: Si-
berian Yupik Ecological Legacy in Transition. Arctic
Anthropology 34(1 ):236-52.

Larsen, Helge, and Froelich Rainey

1 948 Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, 42. New York.

Laughlin, William S.

1 952 Contemporary Problems in the Anthropology of

Southern Alaska. Arctic Institute of North America,

Technical Publication, 1 . Pp. 66-84.
1 980 Aleuts. Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
1 985 Russian-American Bering Sea Relations: Research

and Reciprocity. American Anthropologist87{4):77S-

92.

Laughlin, William S., and Alexei P. Okladnikov

1975 Sovmestnye issledovaniia amerikanskikh i
sovetskikh arkheologov na Anangule (Aleutskie
ostrova, Alaska) Ooint research by American and
Soviet archaeologists at the Anangula site on the
Aleutian Islands, Alaska). In Sootnoshenie drevnikh
kul'tur Sibiri s kul'turami sopredel'nykh territorii.
Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Lee, Molly

1998 Exhibition Review: Drawing Shadows to Stone.

American Anthropologist 1 00(4): 1 005-9.
Levin, Maxim G.

1958 [1963] Etnicheskaia antropologiia i problemy
etnogeneza narodov Dal'nego Vostoka (Physical an-
thropology and ethnogenetic problems of the
peoples of the Far East). Trudy Instituta etnografii
AN SSSR, 36. Moscow. Trans. H. Michael, Ethnic Ori-
gins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia, Arctic Insti-
tute of North America. Anthropology of the North,
Translations from Russian Sources, 3 (Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press).

Liss, Julia E.

1995 Patterns of Strangeness: Franz Boas, Modern-
ism, and the Origins of Anthropology. In Prehistories
of the Future: The Primitivist Project and the Culture

of Modernism. E. Barkan and R. Bush, eds. Pp. 1 14-
30. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mandelstam Balzer, Marjorie

1 996 Introduction. In "Classics" (Stars) of Russian An-
thropology. Special issue. Anthropology and Archae-
ology of Eurasia 35(3):6-l 1 .

Maud, Ralph

1 989 The Henry Tate-Franz Boas Collaboration on
Tsimshian Mythology. American Ethnologist
16(1): 158-62.

Michael, Henry N., ed.

1979 A U.S.-U.S.S.R. Symposium on the Peopling of
the New World. Special issue. Arctic Anthropology
16(1).

Michael, Henry N., and James VanStone

1 983 Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from
an International Symposium. New York: International
Research and Exchange Board.

National Museum of Natural History

1 997 Crossroads in Siberia. National Museum of Natu-
ral History Annual Report, 1996. Pp. 5-9. Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Ousley, Stephen D.

1995 Relationships between Eskimos, Amerindians,
and Aleuts: Old Data, New Perspectives. Human Bi-
ology 67(3):427-58.

2000 Boas, Brinton, and the Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition: The Return of the Americanoids. European
Review of Native American Studies 1 4(2): 1 1-17.

Rasmussen, Knud

1 934 Eskimos and Stone Age Peoples. In Proceedings
of the 5th Pacific Science Congress, 4. Pp. 2767-72.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Roon, Tatiana P.

2000 Kollektsii narodov Amuro-Sakhalinskogo regiona
V muzeiakh SShA (Ethnographic collections on the
peoples of the Amur-Sakhalin Region in American
museums). Izvestiia Instituta naslediia Bronislava
Pilsudskogo 4:1 39-57. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

Rudenko, Sergei I.

1947 [1961] Drevniaia kul'tura Beringova moria i
eskimosskaia problema (The ancient culture of the
Bering Sea and the Eskimo problem). Moscow and
Leningrad: Glavsevmorput'. Trans. P. Tolstoy. Arctic
Institute of North America, Anthropology of the
North: Translations from Russian Sources, 1 (T oronto:
University of Toronto Press).
Sadler, Carolyn, and Laura Greenberg
1 989 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and
Alaska. An Instructional Guide to the Exhibition, for
Grades 7-10. Washington, DC: Office of Education,
National Museum of Natural History and Traveling
Exhibition Service, Smithsonian Institution.
Schweitzer, Peter P., and Evgenyi V. Colovko
1995 Travelling between Continents: The Social

W. FITZHUCH AND I. KRUPNIK

Organization of Interethnic Contacts across Bering
Strait. Anthropology of East Europe Review 1 3(2): 50-
5.

Shternberg, Lev

1 999 The Social Organization of the Cilyak. Bruce
Grant, ed. Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History, 82. New York.

Smith, Barbara S., and D. J. Barrett

1 990 Russian America: The Eorgotten Frontier.
Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society.

Stern, Pamela R., George W. Wenzel, and

Sergei Kan, eds.

1 997 Power, Resistance, and Continuity:Papers in Honor
of Richard C. Condon, Steven L.. McNabb, Aleksandr
I. Rika, William W. Richards, Nikolai Galgauge, Nina
Ankalina, Vera Rakhtilkon, Boris Mymykhtikak, and
Nikolai Avalnun. Arctic Anthropology 34{]).

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1 992 The Ethnographer's Magic and Other Essays in
the History of Anthropology. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1996 Volksgeist as Method and Ethic. Essays on
Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropologi-
cal Tradition. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Thom, Brian

2000 Precarious Rapport: Harlan I. Smith and the Jesup
North Pacific Expedition. European Review of Native
American Studies 14(2):3-10.

Turner, Christy H.

1 988 Ancient Peoples of the North Pacific Rim. In Cross-
roads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska.
William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp. 1 1 1 -
6. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Vakhtin, Nikolai B.

1993 JESUP-2: Novaia programma sotsial'no-
antropologicheskikh issledovanii na Severe (JE5UP-2:
A new program of social and anthropological re-
search in the North). Kunstkamera. Ethnograficheskie
tetradi 1 :21 1 -3. St. Petersburg.

Varjola, Pirjo

1 990 The Etholen Collection: The Ethnographic Alas-
kan Collection of Adolf Etholen and His Contempo-
raries in the National Museum of Finland. Helsinki:
National Board of Antiquities of Finland.

Wickwire, Wendy C.

1988 James A. Teit: His Contribution to Canadian
Ethnomusicology. Canadian Journal of Native Stud-
ies 8(2): 183-204.

Wixman, Ronald

1 988 The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Hand-
book. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

INTRODUCTION

*J"he f^esuits of the Jesup Expedition

Opening /\ddres5 at the
/\mericani5t5, \J\enna 1 905

oth 1 nternational (^-Ongress o f th e

FRANZ BOAS

Translated by Saskia Wrausmann

If I accept the honor of this invitation to report on the
results ofthejesup North Pacific Expedition, I must first
express my deepest regret about the loss of a man
without whose heartfelt interest in ethnological research
we would not have been outfitted for this expedition.
This spring Morris K.Jesup, president of the 1 3th Inter-
national Americanist Congress [in 1 902— ed.] and presi-
dent of the American Museum of Natural History in
New York, passed away. He lent his continued interest
to the development of American science and dedi-
cated his great organizational skills and rich resources
toward the loftiest goals of humankind. For more than
25 years, Mr. Jesup was head of administration at the
American Museum of Natural History. During those years,
he was able to advance not only the natural sciences
but also anthropology in every possible direction and
to foster the value of scientific inquiry in his fellow citi-
zens.

I had the honor to lead the largest comprehensive
study that Mr. Jesup sponsored, the North Pacific Expe-
dition. Starting in 1 897, we conducted extensive eth-
nological and archaeological research on the East Coast
of Siberia and the Northwest Coast of America. The
goal was to investigate how the peoples of this vast
territory interrelate. The expedition itself was completed
in 1 902. The results of our observations are accessible
to the scientific community in a large number of vol-
umes, which should all be completed in about four to
five years. Mr. Jesup himself paid for the expenses in-
curred by the expedition and the publications, a total
cost of about $100,000.

Before I discuss the results of the expedition, it
seems appropriate to delineate the aspects that
guided the development of my research plan. In my
view, the goal of the expedition was to resolve the
question of how the cultures, languages, and races of
the Old World relate to those of the New. Of particular
interest was the extent to which Old World influences
extend into the heart of North America, and vice versa.
These questions naturally are connected in a funda-
mental way to the larger problem of the place of Na-
tive Americans among the peoples and races of the
world.

Our theoretical framework is directly linked to new
perceptions on the evolutionary history of humankind
that have been recently developed by a number of
researchers.

In all anthropological investigations, we face the
difficult fundamental question of how to explain simi-
larities in cultures that are geographically distinct. Some
scholars, in particular those of the British school of an-
thropology, consider similarities as evidence for paral-
lel evolution of humankind in all parts of the globe. In
its most extreme form, their view proposes that hu-
man culture everywhere always follows the same path.
Thus, currently existing circumstances represent differ-
ent stages in the course of human development. Other
scientists do not feel that similar ethnological appear-
ances prove the existence of different developmental
stages but that they are the effect of analogous psy-
chological laws which appear with great uniformity in
all parts of the world and at all levels of development.

1 7

In opposition to these views is a more individual-
ized theory in which culture is a product of a specific
history and development that relies not only on the
mental and physical accomplishments of a people but
also acknowledges that new ideas and modes of liv-
ing arise through contact with neighboring peoples
and external forces. Supporters of this theory tend to
attribute cultural similarities between discrete areas to
a common history. Cultural similarities that occur in
neighboring areas are interpreted as fairly recent bor-
rowings and adaptations. A common ancient culture
core {KulWrgut) explains parallels in distant regions.

Obviously, approaching the issue of cultural resem-
blances from a strictly psychological and developmen-
tal-historical standpoint makes a research question such
as the one posed by the Jesup Expedition seem im-
possible to solve. If all the differences of a restricted
region are ascribed only to faster or slower cultural
development, or if all the similarities are attributed only
to common psychological processes, a historically
based examination of mutual influence in cultural de-
velopment is futile.

We must now admit that many of the cultural simi-
larities in remote areas are so sporadic and unrelated
that it is extraordinarily difficult to defend a common
origin. The wealth of ethnographic information that has
come to light in the past decades points to the ines-
capable fact that the customs and innovations of one
people— say, in North America— can be paralleled by
those of another people in any other part of the globe.
Thus, it is undeniable that convergent developments
and inventions of a people cannot be unequivocally
used as proof of a historical connection because each
would have to be linked historically to all others. On
the other hand, we have a wealth of proof regarding
the dissemination of ideas from one people to another.
We have convincing evidence that the Verbreit-
ungskreise, the expanding circles of cultural achieve-
ments, of early, prehistoric times extended very far.
The spread of cultivated plants and domesticated
animals in the New and the Old Worlds, and the

1 8

enormous distribution of complicated folktales, pro-
vide clear testimony for widespread diffusion.

These considerations were imperative in working
out the complete plan and in choosing a particular
question for investigation. It seemed that our method
of research had to be based on the recognition of
historical lines of diffusion but should also acknowl-
edge similar psychological tendencies in remote areas
and among all peoples, which result in parallels that
are not historically caused. If we keep in mind both
sources of cultural similarity, we must demand, in a
careful, methodical investigation, that an isolated simi-
larity of singular traits should never be seen as proof of
a historical connection. We may only, if there are other
influential reasons, work with the hypothesis of lost
geographic links. A historical connection, then, can only
be considered established when a number of compli-
cated cultural forms appear evenly over a contiguous
region, outside of which they are either missing or are
disjointed and fragmentary.

This does not yet demonstrate that certain appear-
ances emerge from a single center. However, it is ex-
traordinarily likely that related cultural forms blend over
the total area. The question of where a cultural trait
was acquired should be left out of further discussion
because the present concentration of its distribution
provides only very unreliable evidence for the location
of its first appearance.

For this research technique, the negative element—
the absence of typical cultural forms outside an iso-
lated region— carries a lot of weight. This circumstance
calls for special care in the collection of evidential
materials. I want to emphasize sharply that from this
point of view, the evidence for a connection between
the Melanesian-Malay culture and the northwestern
American culture in the sense of Friedrich Ratzel is not
convincing. Instead, one should demand a gradual
exploration of a problem that is of such sweeping im-
portance.

These observations provide the foundation for the
entire JNPE research. Exactly determining the geographic

INTRODUCTION

distribution of ideas and cultural forms, carefully ana-
lyzing assumed cultural acquisitions, and studying the
connection between contemporary and prehistoric
populations within the land stretches in question are
all necessary in order to obtain a clear picture of the
development of culture and the distribution of peoples
in all areas.

Most of all, it seemed imperative not to shirk any
effort in explaining the historical development of the
culture of each area. Aside from the geographic com-
parison, no research method now seems more prom-
ising than surveying how different tribes perceive their
own customs and interpret their own traditions. If it is
true that a large part of every tribe's culture is acquired,
then it is no less true that the acquisition only becomes
a genuine part of the culture if it fuses with native per-
ceptions into a comprehensive whole which has a more
or less expressed character. In other words, the for-
eign element in a culture becomes native by being
permeated by the spirit or style of the native culture.
Because of this, knowing the spread of an objectively
similar form in connection with its subjective interpre-
tation gives us the best method for explaining the pro-
cesses that made each culture, in form and content,
what it is now; both are naturally in a relationship of
the closest reciprocity. This point of view gave weight
to study of the people's own interpretation of their
traditions. It thus seemed supremely important to docu-
ment the anthropological material through uncensored
accounts of natives in their own words and in their
own language, to preserve the original meaning. In
addition, text material gained through such a process
provides an unparalleled basis for purely linguistic re-
search. Such research is clearly superior to a simple
collection of vocabulary and grammar and is abso-
lutely necessary for our purposes. The division of lan-
guages into dialects, word borrowings, tonal and gram-
matical influences, and the presence of large morpho-
logical groups are all manifestations that are vital in
answering our question.

It hardly needs to be mentioned that the study of

FRANZ BOAS

body types of different peoples should not be ne-
glected. A study of the kind I have outlined seems
worthwhile for two reasons. First, we hoped to make
an important contribution to our knowledge of the
relationships between the indigenous peoples of
America and those of the Old World. Second, we hoped
that studying the historical development of a large
area inhabited by peoples of a simpler culture would
give us the means to treat with greater methodologi-
cal precision the vexing ethnographic problem of in-
dependent invention versus acquisition.

It appears to me now that this method of carefully
analyzing a geographically connected region through
our work with the goal of clarifying historical associa-
tions is vividly justified. We found clear proof of cul-
tural acquisition everywhere. Not only that; this method
allowed us to reconstruct population migrations. Thus,
the people of the North Pacific coastal region no longer
appear to be unchanging, ahistorical entities. We see
cultures as changing constantly, each people influenced
by its proximal and distal, spatial and temporal, neigh-
bors. We recognize that although in the historical sense
these peoples are certainly primitive, the structure of
their thoughts and beliefs should not be interpreted as
comparable to that of our earliest ancestors and thus
placed neatly within the developmental-historical or-
der. Instead one should look for their origin in the com-
plex ethnic relationships of all people.

We do not deny that the acquired cognitive mate-
rial with which these populations operate has the ten-
dency, through certain psychological laws, to take on
forms that remind us of distant peoples. We regard the
clarification of these psychological factors as one of
the most important tasks of ethnology. It should result
not in a simple evolutionary formula that can be ap-
plied to all humankind but rather in laws of perception,
thought, feeling, and desire that affect the various cul-
tural forms of humankind.

Thus, the results of our research complement the
conclusions drawn from detailed studies of Africa,
Oceania, and early European history.

1 9

After this brief presentation of our research assump-
tions, I would like to go on to discuss my course of
action and the more specific results of the expedition.
The people we studied in Asia can be grouped to-
gether as the isolated tribes of East Siberia. Four inde-
pendent language families are spoken there, from Ja-
pan northward to the Bering Strait and westward to
the Kolyma River: Ainu, Gilyak, Chukchee, and Yukaghir.
Tungus and Turkish tribes have invaded the region from
the south, considerably changing the cultural and physi-
cal characteristics of some natives. Only the Ainu of
Sakhalin Island and Hokkaido Island were not covered
by the original expedition proposal because older re-
ports are numerous. Messrs. Waldemar Bogoras, and
Waldemar Jochelson, Mrs. Jochelson, Ph.D., and Mr.
Berthold Laufer, Ph.D., worked on the Asian side. Later,
we were fortunate to receive the assistance for the
expedition of Dr. Leo Shternberg, whose extensive
knowledge of the peoples of the Amur River area is of
great importance for our problem. Unfortunately, it was
not possible to extend our work to the isolated tribes
of West Siberia.

The area covered in North America stretches from
the Bering Strait south to the Columbia River. The tribes
there speak 10 independent languages. We did not
consider two of these tribes, the Eskimo and the South
Alaskan Tlingit, because other research was available.
Unfortunately, it was impossible to include in our ob-
servations the Aleut, a tribe whose position is still un-
clear. Our main focus incorporated the tribes of the
province of British Columbia and the state of Washing-
ton. Considering our prior knowledge of the Haida,
Tsimshian, KwakiutI, and Bella Coola, it seemed advan-
tageous to focus our attention on these and other
Salish tribes. John R. Swanton, Ph.D., James Teit, Profes-
sor Livingston Farrand, and I conducted this work.
Gerard Fowke, on the Asian side, and Harlan I. Smith,
on the American side, were responsible for archaeo-
logical research. Mr. Bogoras, Mr. Jochelson, Mr.
Swanton, and I were especially dedicated to linguistic
research, with Mr. Bogoras working with the Chukchee

and Koryak, Mr. Jochelson with the Yukaghir, Mr.
Swanton with the Haida, and myself with the Tsimshian,
KwakiutI, and Salish tribes. Mrs. Jochelson, Ph.D., prima-
rily collected anatomical and anthropological material
in Siberia, and I did the same in America. This material
consists of large collections of photographic types,
skeletons and skulls, and measurements taken both
directly from humans and from plaster casts, which I
value greatly. Naturally, the skeletal material is incon-
sistent, since skulls and skeletons are hard to obtain in
areas where cremation is practiced or other obstacles
occur.

In recounting the results of the entire enterprise, I
will first remark on the stark contrast that has devel-
oped between the tribes of the American North and
Northwest and those of the southern parts of North
America. A comparison of our results with two new,
detailed studies of the Plains Indians and the tribes of
California and the Western Plateau area of North America
convinced me that the tribes of the Pacific states, in-
cluding the larger part of California and the Arctic Coast,
are marginal populations, in the sense of Friedrich Ratzel.
Undoubtedly, these cultures originally covered a much
larger part of northern North America. The more we
familiarize ourselves with the specific ritual culture of
the southern Indian tribes of the Union, and the more
details of their art we understand, the better we can
disregard the secondarily formed perceptions of the
world that distinguish the culture circles of North
America, and the clearer it becomes that they appear
to be gradually attenuating from south to north and
that we may in all likelihood be seeing the northern
ripples of the Central and South American culture circle.
Two Kulturstmme, or cultural flows, seem to have ad-
vanced northward from Mexico across the deserts and
steppes of the Southwest, as well as from the Antilles.
These migrations make North American culture and
the central areas of both North and South America
appear to be a unique entity.

I am therefore impelled to assert that the culture
circle of the Arctic and Pacific Coasts, including the

INTRODUCTION

larger part of California, represents an older American
culture type that has been barely touched by the ex-
pansion of the civilized American peoples. What we
usually call typically American represents a blending
of the cultures of the larger part of the continent, which
took place relatively recently, without reaching the
southernmost and northernmost parts of the hemi-
sphere. The expansion of Indian maize cultivation, to
the extent that it is independent of climatic condi-
tions, clearly demonstrates the aforementioned con-
trast.

The northwestern peoples of the American coast
seem to have originally had an intimate connection
with the isolated peoples of East Siberia. The problem
that confronts us here is perhaps one of the most dif-
ficult and strangest that we encountered during our
research expedition. In superficial observations, simi-
larities in the cultural lives of East Siberian coastal
peoples such as the Chukchee and Koryak and of the
Eskimo are noticeable. It would seem as if the coastal
Chukchee and Koryak possessed the main character-
istics of the Eskimo culture. On the other hand, a sig-
nificant contrast appears between the inhabitants of
the coast of British Columbia and the shores of the Sea
of Okhotsk. Nevertheless, a comparison of the mytho-
logical repertoire of these peoples teaches us that a
widespread concurrence is found between East Sibe-
ria and the southern parts of the North Pacific Coast.
Mr. Jochelson, Mr. Ehrenreich, and I discussed a number
of these parallels at length, so that I can point out here
that an association between American and Asian mo-
tifs undoubtedly exists. I will mention here only magic
flight, a complicated myth motif that is common and
well developed only in northwestern America, although
it does seem to have reached far into the prairie and
the South.

It is certainly not insignificant that the Raven plays
a prominent role as ancestor and sometimes as cre-
ator in the mythology of East Siberian peoples. The
Raven has the same role with the North Pacific peoples
of America. The interpretation of this similarity is made

considerably more difficult by the fact that neighbor-
ing Indians heavily influence the Eskimo from Alaska
east to the Mackenzie River. We know that Indian ani-
mal mythology plays an equally important role. Un-
doubtedly, the mythological repertoire of the entire
North Pacific Coast, starting from the Sea of Okhotsk
east and south to the Columbia River, contains many
common elements.

However, there is an important difference here. While
Eskimo animal mythology, as far as I know, is largely
newly acquired, the Indian-like myths of the East Asian
peoples such as the Koryak are much older. I am im-
pelled to assume a very old association in that direc-
tion, and it does seem likely that an ancient connec-
tion existed between the peoples of the Sea of Okhotsk
and the Indians of British Columbia— a connection that
could be older than the arrival of the Eskimo at the
Bering Strait.

At present, we are not able to answer this impor-
tant question with full conviction. We do hope, how-
ever, that archaeological explorations along the coast
of Alaska will give us a definitive answer. This hope
relies mainly on the sharply defined physical type of
the Eskimo, which differs so much from that of neigh-
boring peoples that a row of Eskimo skulls can be
readily recognized as such. If other types were to be
discovered in older layers on the shores of the Bering
Sea, we would have proof that the Eskimo of Alaska
should be looked at as later migrants from the more
eastern regions of the (North) American Arctic.

I would like to point out a phenomenon that I find
significant and that reopens in a certain sense the Boyd-
Dawkins theory of a possible connection between
prehistoric Europe and the Eskimo. As is well known,
Boyd-Dawkins compared the occurrence of Paleolithic
harpoon types and carvings with those of the Eskimo
and concluded that their obvious similarities meant a
possible connection between the two. One must now
recognize that although harpoons are found almost
everywhere, the unique tools with holes in them, and
the tendency toward artistically realistic objects, are

FRANZ BOAS

hardly found in the same pattern of association. Now
one must emphasize that the ornamental designs of
prehistoric Europe also show a distinctive similarity to
the designs of Arctic America. For example, a design
of two carved parallel lines with short alternately placed
grooves that point inward at a right angle and, when
wide enough, create a zigzag pattern can be found in
both areas, on ivory or bone. As far as I know, this
design has not been discovered in any other part of
the globe. I do not want to draw from these similari-
ties the conclusion that the Boyd-Dawkins theory is
proved. I do believe, however, that these similarities
deserve our continued attention by way of keeping in
mind the possibility of cultural links.

Given the importance of this question, it seems
appropriate to examine more closely the range of the
mentioned ornamental types. When compared with
the older collections from Europe, the collections made
during the Jesup Expedition prove that the types and
designs in Siberia evidently occur up to the Lena River,
and in North America all the way east to northern
Greenland. I myself have had the opportunity to in-
spect large collections from southern Greenland. How-
ever, my friend Dr. Thalbitzer tells me that he has seen
no types of this sort in the Greenlandic collection in
Copenhagen. I do not know whether these ornamen-
tal types exist in prehistoric western Siberia and in Russia.

Let us now turn to a discussion of the relationship
of languages and the anthropological types of North-
west America and Northeast Asia.

According to the data collected by Mr. Bogoras
and Mr. Jochelson, it seems safe to say that the iso-
lated languages of Northeast Asia cannot be sepa-
rated from the American languages on the basis of
phonetic and morphological characteristics. However,
one must remember that a unity of all American lan-
guages, in the form proposed by earlier researchers,
does not exist. Instead, we can group the colorful
multitude of American languages into a number of
morphological categories that display significant, even
fundamental, differences among each other. Neither

incorporation nor polysynthesis can be considered a
specifically American language trait. The interpretation
of these language family groups whose genetic rela-
tion cannot yet be determined causes the same prob-
lems in America as in other continents. I assume that
this phenomenon is similar to the one that led Mr.
Wilhelm Schmidt to group so many of the languages
of Southeast Asia together and on which Lepsius al-
ready focused in his study of African languages.

Whatever the later interpretation of this problem
may be, it does seem confirmed that the eastern group
of the isolated Siberian languages leans more toward
America than toward Central Asia and that if one must
draw a line, they are best categorized with the Ameri-
can languages.

Physical anthropology studies in the area in ques-
tion reveal similar conditions. Because of intrusions by
Tungus and Yakut [Sakha— ed.] tribes. Northeast Sibe-
rian tribes undoubtedly undera/ent assimilation, so that,
for example, the Yukaghir have strong blood relations
with the Tungus and Yakut. The Mongolian features of
the Northeast Siberian peoples, which are especially
expressed in the shape of the eye and nose, are thus
strongly developed. On the other hand, the develop-
ment of the cheekbones seems at the very least less
prominent in the tribes of the Far East, such as the
Chukchee and Koryak, than in the Yakut.

In America, the purely Mongolian features increase
significantly toward the Northwest. First and foremost,
the strong development of the nose in the American
Northwest disappears, as is typical among the peoples
of Asia. The "Mongoloid eye" is more strongly devel-
oped, although not with the same intensity as in Asia.
The face shape approaches the flat Asiatic shape more
and more, and even the skin color varies little between
Asiatic and American peoples.

So, it seems that the native Siberians and the Ameri-
cans of the Northwest Coast constitute one entity.

I am perhaps permitted to rephrase the problem
of the position of the Native American population in
light of this new information. Everything leads me to

INTRODUCTION

believe that humans have inhabited America for a long
time. It has not yet been decided whether the migra-
tion occurred before or after the last Ice Age, but all
criticism by geologists notwithstanding, an early mi-
gration may be supported in all probability. If we may
assume such an early migration in America, it does not
seem impossible that the isolated peoples of Siberia
represent a postglacial back-migration out of America.
On the other hand, it may also be possible that the
white race, which has flooded the entire globe over
the course of time, originally appeared as a localized
variety.

Let us turn from these general questions, which
inevitably lead to more or less uncertain hypotheses,
to the specific results of the Jesup Expedition. I would
first like to note that we were able to prove a signifi-
cant number of shifts of populations and culture in
America and Asia. Mr. Harlan I. Smith's archaeological
research and the linguistic studies conducted by Mr.
James Teit and myself all led to the same conclusion.
The distribution of peoples in southern British Colum-
bia has been changed by a wave of migration that
brought Salish tribes from the interior across the Rocky
Mountains to the coast. The coastal inhabitants have
culturally assimilated these tribes almost completely.
We have here the interesting theoretical example in
which a totem and clan organization was acquired by
a tribe that previously had a simple family organiza-
tion. This transition has been found in a number of tribes
that were subjected to the cultural influences of the
coast. Thus we cannot assume the typically unspeci-
fied development from totem organization to a sim-
pler form.

Our in-depth anthropological study of the residents
of northern Vancouver Island supports the fact that
the Native tribe here originally had a close connection
to the tribes of the Columbia River. These relations
would have been subsequently interrupted by the im-
migration of inland tribes.

A second interesting migration wave can be fol-
lowed in northern British Columbia. The Tsimshian are

part of the groups of the Alaskan coastal regions, which
are characterized by strongly expressed high culture.
Their myths and basic religious beliefs, however, point
to a close association with the population of the north-
ern section of the West American Plateau area. More
specifically, these data point directly toward a con-
nection with the cultural group represented by the
Northern Shoshone. To fully clarify the matter, we will
look at the extensive collection of material from the
western parts of the Mackenzie River basin. It has al-
ready been determined that the Tsimshian can be con-
sidered new settlers in the coastal region. It is remark-
able that their type of language is completely isolated
and that it seems to be most closely related to the
Shoshone and Kutenai groups.

I have already discussed the probable shift of the
Eskimo westward.

Unfortunately, there is a total lack of precise infor-
mation on the Aleut information that is imperative
for a comprehensive solution to the problem we are
discussing here. We should therefore greet with joy
Mr. Waldemar Jochelson's preparations to study the
Aleut in connection with the large Raboushinsky Expe-
dition that has been planned.

Aside from the more recent and documented inva-
sions by the Tungus and Yakut in Northern Siberia, no
similar larger movements can be proved in Asia. Mr.
Bogoras and Mr. Jochelson have shown that the
Kamchadal, the Koryak, and the Chukchee comprise a
linguistic unit and that their original range of distribu-
tion reached as far west as the Kolyma River. Mr.
jochelson has finally determined the Chuvan people to
be a branch of the Yukaghir. j

One of the most important cultural-historical facts
emerging from the expedition's research relates to the
domestication of reindeer in East Asia and the con-
spicuous and complete lack thereof in America. To
put it briefly, it seems that West Siberian peoples use
reindeer in the same way as their neighbors use cattle.
The Central Siberians use the reindeer like Turkish
people use the horse. In contrast East Siberians now

FRANZ BOAS

use reindeer more like they once used the dog. From
these and other facts, we may draw the conclusion
that rein-deer breeding everywhere adjusts to the older
culture of a people or to the cultural forms of its neigh-
bors. With the East Siberian peoples, everything seems
to support the idea that perhaps only a few centuries
ago the Chukchee, as well as the Koryak, were purely
coastal inhabitants with economic practices not un-
like those of the Eskimo. A strong proliferation of these
tribes and a peopling of the interior seem to have hap-
pened only after the reindeer gradually started replac-
ing the dog. Considering the lively exchange between
Asia and America in the area of the Bering Strait, the
complete lack of the reindeer culture alongside a lively
trade in other cultural attainments in America can hardly
be explained otherwise. A confirmation of this view
also results from the unusual lack of adaptation of the
Chukchee dwelling to the demands of the nomadic
lifestyle. The Chukchee tent is to be understood archi-
tecturally as an adaptation to the nomadic lifestyle of

the Eskimo-type subterranean dwelling. In its heavy
clumsiness, it differs surprisingly from the easily mobile
tent of the Eskimo.

I cannot discuss here in detail every conclusion of
our whole endeavor. As expected, the members of
the expedition have collected a wealth of ethnologi-
cal, linguistic, and anthropological data. We originally
estimated that these materials would be published in
1 2 quarto volumes. Now that about 7 volumes have
been published, we realize that there is too much in-
formation for the planned size of the publication. How-
ever, I hope we will reach a satisf/ing conclusion for
the exploration Mr. Jesup so generously organized by
publishing its complete results.

Note

This is a translation of Franz Boas (1 91 0), Die
Resultate der Jesup Expedition. Internationaler
Amehcanisten-Kongress 16, 1908. Erste Hdlfte, pp.
3-1 8 (Vienna and Leipzig: A. Hartleben's Verlag).
Printed as a separate issue in 1909.

INTRODUCTION

In Memort) of Douglas Co'e, 1 5^55-~l ^5>7

IGOR KRUPNIK

Douglas Lowell Cole, of Simon Fraser University, died
suddenly of a heart attack on August 18, 1997. He
was not quite 59, and his death came as an unex-
pected tragedy. It happened three months before the
Jesup Expedition Centennial Conference in New York in
1 997, where Cole was to deliver a plenary review pa-
per with the same title as his chapter in this volume.
His life and professional career have been covered at
length by several posthumous publications, (see Cole,
this volume), to which an interested reader can turn.

In this era of virtual communications, personal con-
nections are built quite differently than in the time of
Boas and the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. I never
met Douglas Cole in person, and we spoke by phone
but once. Introduction to each other, progress in un-
derstanding, and building of mutual respect all took
place in cyberspace. The communication lasted for
about a year, and it left a file of some 40 e-mail letters
and messages. This is, of course, not much, but the
result is this contribution of Cole to the Jesup volume
and our deep sense of a sad loss.

In April 1 996, Douglas Cole sent me a short letter
expressing his interest in our forthcoming collection of
papers on Boas and the Jesup Expedition. Of course,
we knew of his book on the history of the Northwest
Coast museum collections, Captured Heritage (1 985),
and of his many other publications on Northwest Coast
history and Franz Boas. In response, I wrote to him
about the Jesup 2 program and invited him to exchange
some materials of mutual interest. Intrigued, Cole of-
fered to send us a rough cut excerpt of sections on
the Jesup Expedition from his forthcoming biography

of Boas for comments, advice, and criticism. As we
read this first pasted draft, I invited him to rework it
into a review paper on the expedition's history for our
collection of Jesup essays. Within four months, we re-
ceived a 60-page manuscript.

This is however only part of the story. Douglas Cole
had his special and quite distinctive view of Boas as a
person and a scientist and of Boas' interactions with
other prominent personalities of the time, and he did
not flinch when his revisionist opinions contradicted
many a popular perspective. In any convention of
modern Boasian admirers, Douglas Cole was an indis-
pensable and a challenging ingredient. His initial evalu-
ation of the Jesup Expedition as an artificially inflated
venture and merely a Boas failure was highly provoca-
tive, at the least, and it was largely unfair, to our minds.

In underlining this, I offered to include Cole's paper
in our Jesup 2 volume as a "voice of dissent," reserving
our right as editors to submit an editorial rejoinder.
Although tough as an opponent, Douglas Cole was
very keen in accepting criticism. Several letters followed,
and many comments and materials were exchanged.
The final result of this interaction is presented in the
next chapter. It preserves Cole's original critical stand,
though moderated to mutual satisfaction.

Douglas Cole did not live to see the publication in
1999 of his major scholarly volume, Franz Boas. The
Early Years, 1 858- 1 906, or to personally meet the net-
work of Jesup 2 researchers. This loss to our common
studies of the Jesup Expedition history and legacy is
indeed irreplaceable. We will miss Douglas Cole and
his insights tremendously for many years to come.

IGOR KRUPNIK

4/ Camp of the Reindeer Koryak and herd of reindeer, with the Jochelsons' field tent in the middle, 1901
(AMNH 4168)

THE EXPEDITION: HEMISPHERIC PERSPECTIVES

Tiding

(Undertaken htj f\/[uscum"?

Y'ranz £)oa5, Morns Jesup, and the fNjorth f acifi'c Expedition

DOUGLAS COLE

Franz Boas was a curator in the Department of Anthro-
pology at the American IVIuseum of Natural History
(AMNH) for almost 1 0 years, from January 1 896 until
May 1 905. From this Central Park West locale, he initi-
ated numerous projects, some of which, such as an
African and Asian missionary collection, were fruitless
and forgotten. He invested his greatest ambition in
three major museum initiatives: an East Asiatic project
which, beginning with China, would move to the Phil-
ippines and Malaya; a North American "Vanishing
Tribes" project that hoped to salvage ethnological and
linguistic information from the scores of North Ameri-
can Native groups endangered by Euro-American settle-
ment; and the jesup North Pacific Expedition to inves-
tigate groups on both sides of the Bering Strait.

The East Asiatic project placed Berthold Laufer in
China from 1 901 to 1 904 but then collapsed. "Vanish-
ing Tribes" went on fruitfully, though never at Boas'
desired pace, both under him and under his successor,
Clark Wissler. The Jesup Expedition, the most cherished
of Boas' museum projects, ran for its full five years,
produced a large quantity of publications, and exer-
cised a continuing influence on research, especially on
the western side of the Bering Strait. It was the show-
piece of Boas' association with the AMNH. Recent
evaluations of the Jesup Expedition have been kind.
The expedition was "an anthropological tour de
force," a "grandiose, brilliantly conceptualized, and
masterfully orchestrated attack on one of the most
important problems in American anthropology"

(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1 988; 1 4) that "still ranks as the
foremost expedition in the history of American anthro-
pology" (Freed et al. 1 988b:7).

The prime instigators had more ambivalent feel-
ings. To AMNH President Morris K. Jesup, the expedi-
tion had, by the time of his death in early 1 908, be-
come a matter of "many disappointments," "an enter-
prise that has involved expense and anxiety out of all
proportion to the representations that were originally
made" Oesup to Osborne, 30 April 1906, AMNH, File
293b). Boas, too, faltered in his faith. Although he pub-
licly praised Jesup and the expedition, he privately ex-
pressed a wish to "simply dump the whole Jesup Ex-
pedition and concern myself no further with it" (Franz
Boas to Sophie Boas, 1 8 March 1 909, APS).'

Background

Born in Prussian Westphalia and educated at Heidel-
berg, Bonn, and Kiel, Boas began his anthropological
work during a yearlong expedition to Baffin Island. He
sought a position, preferably in the United States, but
could find nothing except a temporary assistantship
at Berlin's Royal Ethnological Museum. There he en-
countered its recent, rich Northwest Coast collections
and had an opportunity to study briefly a group of
touring Bella Coola [Nuxalk]. All the more intent on an
American career (and, cherche la femme, on seeing his
New York fiancee), he traveled to New York and,
borrowing money from relatives, made a first visit
to the Northwest Coast. He was then asked by the

2 9

Northwest Tribes Committee of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) to survey the
Native tribes of British Columbia, which were threat-
ened by settlers brought in by the recently completed
Canadian Pacific Railway. Boas made five more trips to
the Northwest, on behalf of the BAAS or with the sup-
port of the American Bureau of Ethnology. In the mean-
time, he had secured a position with Science, a weekly
New York journal, and had married Marie Krackowitzer,
the American-born daughter of an Austrian "Forty-
Eighter," one of the liberal-minded Germans who had
left after the disappointment of the Revolution of 1 848.

Boas had come to the United States in part be-
cause of the opportunity it offered as a raw scientific
field. But rawness carried, as he soon found, the prob-
lem of there being few positions. He suffered a series
of false starts: at Science, at the new Clark University
[in Worcester, Mass.], at the Chicago World's Fair [the
1 893 World's Columbian Exposition], and at Chicago's
new Field Museum. In 1 896, however, his chief at the
Chicago Fair, Frederic W. Putnam, who had become
curator of anthropology at the AMNH as well as direc-
tor of Harvard University's Peabody Museum, wedged
him into an assistant curatorial position at AMNH and
a lecturer's appointment at Columbia College. From
these posts. Boas' training, disciplinary breadth, abil-
ity, and incredible industriousness allowed him to be-
come a commanding presence in his field.

Boas had arrived at the AMNH at a bad time. The
country was in a severe depression, with the museum's
trustees and donors made all the more nervous by the
growth of the populism, free silver, and single tax move-
ments. The Anthropology Department received no ac-
quisition budget in 1 896, and the museum's president,
Morris K. Jesup, soon had regrets that he had taken on
Boas' salary commitment. Jesup had, however, already
decided that the Anthropology Department, along
with vertebrate paleontology, should receive priority
treatment. To this end he had hired Putnam, the best
man he could get as curator, and had agreed to take
on Boas as an associate curator.

The accidental arrival of a damaged collection of
British Columbian artifacts in New York allowed Boas
to break Jesup's budget restrictions, although the presi-
dent expressed surprise that the museum's Northwest
Coast collections, among its strongest areas, should
need supplementing. Boas assured him that it would
be the easiest matter in the world to spend $3,000 on
that region (Boas to Putnam, 1 8 December 1 896, HUA,
Box 8). Since this area of the KwakiutI [Kwak-
waka'wakw], Bella Coola [Nuxalk], and Salish was his
special interest. Boas was anxious to fill gaps. The sal-
vage purchase was a mere tidbit. Boas had his eye on
much more.

He realized immediately the value to research and
collecting represented by the wealth of the AMNH's
trustees and friends. Late in 1 896, he drafted a letter
to Henry Villard, sponsor of the museum's Peru and
Bolivia expeditions, proposing that Villard, the former
president of the Northern Pacific Railway and now pro-
prietor of the Evening Po5f (and a fellow German Ameri-
can), contribute toward filling the gap. With several
thousand dollars over the next two years. Boas wrote,
the museum "should have the most thorough and I
may say a complete collection from the region be-
tween Columbia River and Mt. St. Elias" (Boas to Villard,
23 December 1 896, AMNH, Acc. 1 897-30). The letter
proved unnecessary. Jesup himself soon took up a much
more extensive proposal for an elaborate exploration
of the anthropological affinities between Asia and North
America.'^

Boas put this idea, which had matured for well over
a year, before Jesup on January 19, 1897. Describing
the question of the influence between Old and New
World cultures as one of the most important problems
of American anthropology. Boas proposed in his letter
to Jesup a systematic ethnological and archaeological
investigation of both sides of the North Pacific. (See
Appendix A, this chapter). Fragmentary study, he wrote,
had demonstrated the commonality of certain cultural
elements in the two regions. Bows, body armor, and
canoes, for example, had common features. The great

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

diversity of language along both coasts was striking,
but since the languages on the Asian side were practi-
cally unknown, it was unclear whether there were any
actual linguistic similarities. Particular points of mytho-
logical coincidence suggested early communication.
Northwest Coast Indians physically resembled the
Asians more than did any other American stock.

In short, there are so many points of similar-
ity between the tribes of this whole region
that we are justified in expecting that here a
mutual influence between the cultures of the
Old and of the New World has existed. Thus
a foundation for the solution of this impor-
tant problem with all its important bearings
upon the ancient civilisation of America may
be laid in this region. (Boas to Jesup, 1 9
January 1897, HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 16)

Conveying his ingrained sense of salvage urgency,
Boas noted that everywhere, but especially on the
Asian side, the culture of the people was rapidly dis-
appearing "and the whole work is becoming more dif-
ficult from year to year."^

Jesup's imagination was struck by the great prob-
lem of Asian-American contacts. He "got very much
interested in that question" (Putnam 1 902) and, in his
annual report written in January 1 897 commented that
"the theory that America was originally peopled by
migrating tribes from the Asian continent" was a sub-
ject of great interest to scientists. Opportunities for
solving this problem were rapidly disappearing, Jesup
continued, and he then asked that friends of the mu-
seum contribute toward a systematic investigation of
the problem Qesup 1897:24-5).

Before there was an opportunity for a response to
his appeal, Jesup himself jumped. On February 9 he
told Boas that he wanted personally to take up the
plan and asked for a detailed scheme for carrying it
out. Boas was overwhelmed. "Mr. Jesup looks at the
proposed expedition in the light that it will be the
greatest thing ever undertaken by any Museum either
here or abroad and that it will give the Institution an
unequalled standing in scientific circles" (Boas to Putnam,
1 1 February 1 897, HUA, Box 8; emphasis added)." Thus

DOUGLAS COLE

began the Jesup North Pacific Expedition to investi-
gate affinities between the peoples of Northeast Asia
and Northwest America.

Jesup's move was not uncharacteristic. A self-made
man of considerable wealth, generous with his time
and money, he had always been sympathetic to grand
designs and large-scale ideas: he had underwritten the
Jesup Collection of North American Woods, some 10
years in acquisition, and the Jesup Collection of Eco-
nomic Entomology and was now supporting the polar
aspirations of Commander Robert E. Peary. Boas had
put before him a vast project that promised to ad-
dress the fundamental question of the relationship
between Asia and aboriginal America. He accepted
the challenge.

Jesup's decision launched Boas into frenzied ac-
tion. He visited Leonhard Stejneger, a Smithsonian natu-
ralist familiar with the Siberian coast, in Washington,
D.C., and wrote to some orientalists to ask about young
men suitable for Siberian work. The matter was made
all the more urgent because Jesup had seized on the
expedition as a lever for securing another museum wing
from the New York state legislature. The public an-
nouncement, made a little too hastily for Boas' taste
but dictated by the state assembly's calendar, was
released for March 1 2 newspaper editions. (Boas had
to provide details and corrections to reporters over
the next two days.) "The main object of the expedi-
tion is to investigate and establish the ethnological
relations between the races of America and Asia, and
is intended as a contribution to the solution of that
question." Field parties would work on the American
West Coast, along the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk,
and in the northern portion of the Bering Sea. The ex-
pedition will be the greatest, it is said, in point of time
spent and territory traversed ever backed by private
individuals in this line of research" {New York Times, 1 3
March 1897, 2:5).

The roots of Boas' intercontinental project, now
Jesup's, reached back to well before Boas' employ-
ment in Jesup's museum. In 1895 Boas had sounded

3 1

out people in Berlin about a prospective fieldworker
and had then investigated, through Stejneger, trans-
portation routes to Siberia's Amur River region
(Stejneger to Boas, 1 6 November, 1 1 December 1 895).
An expedition, he told Berlin sinologist Wilhelm Crube,
"had in the last year almost come to fruition twice"
(Boas to Grube, reported in Boas to Laufer, 5 May 1 896,
AMNH, Acc. 1900-12). What Boas meant, at a time
when he was without a position, is unclear, but he
certainly foresaw an investigation of the relationship
between Siberian and Northwest American groups.

During that same Berlin summer he had raised, more
explicitly than ever, the question of the probable con-
nections between Asian and American peoples. A num-
ber of complicated British Columbian myths, he told
the Berlin Geographical Society, showed such similar-
ity with Old World myths that a cultural connection
between the two continents was very probable. The
distribution of other phenomena, including physical
type, pressed toward the same conclusion and made
it probable that firm links between the cultural areas of
both worlds would be found (Boas 1 895b:266-70).

Boas' interest in the question of intercontinental
relationships arose in large part from the publication
that summer of his book Indianische Sagen (Boas
1895a). Breaking up myths into elements, he showed
the mixture of these among the coastal and interior
groups of the Northwest and traced some far beyond,
to the Mackenzie and Mississippi River basins, the North
Atlantic coast, and along the Arctic, to Greenland. The
mythologies of the Northwest tribes also incorporated
foreign elements from the Old World.

According to a letter Boas wrote to a German edi-
tor in 1 897, he had long collected collaborating data
for the mutual influences of the coastal inhabitants of
these areas. His reading of Georg Steller's 18th-cen-
tury description of Kamchatka "transposes me almost
directly into familiar Northwest American surroundings,"
but he had been especially struck by Grube's recent
article in Globus on shamanism among the Nanay
people of Siberia's lower Amur River (Boas to Andree,

4 May 1897, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File). Some legends
recounted there coincided almost exactly with those
of the Northwest Coast, which, more importantly, were
limited in North America solely to those coastal groups.^
Other data argued emphatically for an early influence
on Northwest Coast cultures.

The Jesup Expedition would be pursued within the
research strategy that Boas had now developed. This
was to be an explicit demonstration of the efficacy of
the historical method of anthropological research. "I
believe," he wrote to Globus editor Richard Andree,
"that our science urgently requires an investigation of
the historical development of the cultures of primitive
peoples in order to obtain a clear understanding of the
laws of cultural development." The Jesup Expedition
would cover an area "unusually favorable" for such a
method since "the major influences have occurred along
a direct coastline" (Boas to Andree, 4 May 1 897, AMNH-
DA, Jesup Ex. File). This would be an opportunity. Boas
told Edward. B. Tylor, for a rigid adherence to the his-
torical method, whose superiority over the compara-
tive method he had recently asserted in a paper at the
Buffalo meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS). "I want to investi-
gate the geographical distribution of certain customs
and characteristics over continuous areas." The histori-
cal method meant that "we shall not obtain dazzling
results, but I hope such as will stand the criticism of
later times" (Boas to Tylor, 1 3 April 1 897, Balfour Li-
brary, Oxford, Tylor Papers). The Buffalo paper, "The
Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropol-
ogy," had been a reassertion of Boas' decade-old point
that generalization must come from careful investiga-
tion and induction, not from a priori assumptions. The
method required a limitation to a restricted and well-
defined territory, with comparisons that did not ex-
tend beyond the limits of the cultural area itself.

A detailed study of customs in their relation
to the total culture of the tribe practicing
them, in connection with an investigation of
their geographical distribution among
neighboring tribes, affords us almost always

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

a means of determining with considerable
accuracy the historical causes that led to the
formation of the customs in question and to
the psychological processes that were at
work in their development. (Boas 1896b)

Boas' criticism was methodological and was con-
cerned in large part with the weakness of the "com-
parative method" (Carneiro 1 973; Leopold 1 980; Stock-
ing 1987), but he did mention the research area that
he already had in mind. While no one believed that
slight similarities between Central American and East
Asian cultures were satisfactory proof of a historical
connection, "no unbiased observer will deny that there
are very strong reasons for believing that a limited num-
ber of cultural elements found in Alaska and in Siberia
have a common origin" (Boas 1896b, 1940:277).^

Fieldwork in America's North Pacific Region

The first season's work of the Jesup Expedition would
be confined to British Columbia in order to give Boas
time to organize the Siberian work for the following
year. He had already been planning a summer trip to
the coast, partly in the museum's interest, partly to
prepare a final report for the BAAS's Northwest Tribes
committee. He had originally arranged for only a two-
month trip, one month of which would be without
museum pay, although with BAAS assistance.'' Now it
became a four-month first field season of the Jesup
North Pacific Expedition.

"I go west better equipped than ever before," he
wrote before his May departure (Boas to parents, 9
April 1 897). More money was part of it; so too was his
new intimacy with the museum's collection. Equally
satisf/ing was the presence of collaborators and com-
panions who, though often pursuing their own assigned
work, would be with him much of the summer.

He was mostly with Harlan Smith, the taciturn young
man from East Saginaw, N.Y., whom he had known
since the Chicago Fair. Smith was just 25. A boyhood
interest in Indian remains had led him to Putnam and
archaeology. Boas liked the bachelor archaeologist.
"His heart is in the right place and he is absolutely

reliable," but he doubted that Smith would ever amount
to much in archaeology. Although resourceful, clever,
and good with his hands. Smith lagged behind in any-
thing to do with real scholarship. The "many gaps" in
his knowledge were obvious, his questions were "un-
believably simple," and he was unable to "see the con-
nection between his work and the general broad ques-
tions of anthropology" (Boas to parents, 1 5 August
1897; F. Boas to M. Boas, 21 August 1897; Boas to
Putnam, 10 April 1900, HUA, Putnam Papers).

A second companion was 30-year-old Columbia
psychologist Livingston Farrand, who now lectured in
ethnology as well. Farrand, totally inexperienced infield-
work, wanted to apprentice with Boas and volunteered
to go west at his own expense. That had not gone
over well with Jesup, who, taking a "narrow-minded"
view, wanted no outsiders on his great expedition (Boas
to parents, 9 April 1 987). Boas' long letter turned the
situation, and although Farrand's field assignments were
largely separate from his own. Boas found that Farrand's
gaiety, unassuming naturalness, and good manners
made him a pleasant companion (F. Boas to parents, 9
April, 27 May, 15 June 1897; reproduced in Rohner
1969:206).

The three New Yorkers arrived in British Columbia
at the beginning of June and traveled immediately to
Spences Bridge in the southern interior. There they ren-
dezvoused with James Teit, the Scotsman whom Boas
had first met in 1 894. Teit had prepared things well,
securing local NIaka'pamux [Thompson Indians] for the
physical measurements that Boas wished to take. While
Smith went on to dig in Kamloops and Lytton (see
Thom, this volume), Boas and Farrand, guided by Teit,
began a long horseback trip northwestward along the
Eraser River, across the Chilcotin plateau, and over the
Coast Range to the Bella Coola [Nuxalk] on the Pacific.
Farrand detached himself at Puntzi Lake when Boas
decided that the Chilcotin were so interesting that
they deserved a month of Farrand's time. The over-
land journey took 38 often unpleasant days: rain
poured over the 1 0-horse pack train in the usually dry

DOUGLAS COLE

interior, bogging down the horses. Rations seldom
strayed from beans and bacon. Natives along the way
were not keen to allow themselves to be measured.
Only the beauty of the mountains and valleys made
much of the journey rewarding.

Bella Coola, remote as it was, came as a relief. There
Boas found a welcome bed at the home of John
Clayton, a local storekeeper, and enjoyed the dietary
change to fresh salmon. More important, George Hunt,
Boas' collaborator from Fort Rupert, had done his ad-
vance work well. The two worked together every
morning, going over the Kwak'wala texts that Hunt
had been sending East, with the balance of the day
spent investigating Bella Coola religious ideas.

Boas then went north to Port Essington on the
Skeena River to measure, make casts, and identify
museum pieces. There he met Charles Edenshaw, a
Haida artist, and hired him to identify items from the
museum's collection and to show him something of
northern art and the basics of Haida ethnology. Boas
then spent two weeks with Hunt among the
Kwakwaka'wakw [Kwakiult] of Rivers Inlet. That con-
cluded Boas' fieldwork. He met up with Farrand, and
the two left for New York, while Smith stayed on with
his excavations until winter rains drove him home in
mid-November.

Boas was pleased with the season. They had made
over a hundred plaster-of-paris facial casts and many
more body measurements. Boas had enough informa-
tion from Edenshaw to write the first contribution to
the Jesup Expedition series, "Facial Paintings of the In-
dians of Northern British Columbia" (Boas 1 898a), which
enlarged on the place of geometric design in North-
west Coast decorative art. He had also corrected and
revised over 300 pages of Hunt's texts and had gath-
ered new material, all of which was published as "The
Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians" (Boas 1 898b),
on the peculiar cosmology of that group. Farrand, un-
fortunately, "had not done very much" (F. Boas to M.
Boas, 1 3 September 1 897). The Chilcotin had been
less than cordial, and Farrand had not been able to

find a good interpreter. His collection of legends, how-
ever incomplete, did show "a not very rich indepen-
dent mythology, but a surprising receptivity to foreign
influences" (Farrand 1 900:4).

Smith's archaeological results seemed very impor-
tant. The older shell mounds of the coast revealed a
skull type resembling that of the interior, while yet older
ones contained deformed skulls related to those of
the Koskimo Kwakiutl. This seemed to indicate that at
an earlier time a rather uniform population had pre-
vailed along the coast from the Columbia River to
northern British Columbia and that the various types
now found on the coast stemmed from migration of
Indians from the interior, with the earlier population
prevailing now only on the Columbia River and north-
ern Vancouver Island (Boas, unpublished lectures, Feb-
ruary 1898:17; Seattle 1985).

Boas did not participate in the next two Jesup Ex-
pedition field seasons. Farrand returned to the coast in
1 898 to investigate two Olympic Peninsula groups,
the Quinault and the Quileute. Despite considerable
disappointment, he collected enough to show a myth
transition from the Northwest Coast toward the Chi-
nook (Farrand and Kahnweiler 1 902:79-80). In the same
season. Smith made excavations in Puget Sound and
at Lillooet and then continued his archeological work
in 1 899 on Vancouver Island. The results seemed to
confirm an early migration from the interior to the coast
and to Vancouver Island that carried with it the art of
stone chipping and geometric decoration (Smith
1907:439).

Boas himself went west in 1 900, the fourth year of
the expedition. His field season in British Columbia was
relatively simple: six days with Teit in the Nicola Valley
and then two full months at Alert Bay.

Teit had proved to be the treasure that Boas had
anticipated at their first meeting in 1 894. At that time
Teit, age 30, had been in British Columbia for 1 2 years.
Raised in the Shetland Islands, he had left school at 1 6
and two years later had joined an uncle who ran a
store in Spences Bridge. Teit was soon drawn into the

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

Native world: within three years of his arrival he was
living with Lucy Antko, a NIaka'pamux woman whom
he officially married in 1 892 (Wickwire 1 993). He made
his living by a variety of frontier occupations: packing,
guiding, freighting, and serving as a big-game hunting
guide. By the time Boas met him, Teit was already se-
riously studying the Indians around him. By 1900 he
had finished, in addition to several small pieces, a vol-
ume containing Thompson [NIaka'pamux] texts and a
review of their ethnography, which was now in press
as ajesup Expedition publication (Teit 1898, 1900).

Boas' purpose in meeting Teit on this trip was
largely to take anthropometric measurements of the
Indians south of Spences Bridge. Boas— soon stiff and
sore— rode on the horse familiar from the Bella Coola
trek from village to village with Teit, then survived the
eight-hour, 41 -mile return to Teit's home. Furnished with
only a table, two chairs, and a bed, the one-room cabin
was filled with books about Indians and the Shetlands.
"Mr. Teit can give us all an example of great industry
and of the unassuming fulfillment of duty," Boas wrote
his children (29June 1 900). After looking through Teit's
notes, Boas boarded the train for Vancouver and then
the boat to Alert Bay.

At Alert Bay he enjoyed comfortable accommo-
dation with George Hunt's brother-in-law, the merchant
S. A. Spencer, and had the daytime use of a small cabin
where he could work with the Kwakwaka'wakw. He
found a good interpreter in William Brotchie for the
language and a painter to explain details of the art.
Older men came by to tell him stories, and he sought
out recipes and information on food preparation and
medicines from the women. The sole difficulty was
that Hunt was kept busy in Spencer's cannery, and so,
for most of the time, he could help Boas only in the
evenings and on Sundays.

It was during this Jesup Expedition period that the
collaboration between Boas and Hunt solidified. Al-
though Boas had worked with Hunt since 1888,
particularly for the Chicago Fair and then at Fort Rupert
in the winter of 1894-95, and Hunt had long been

DOUGLAS COLE

sending Kwakwaka'wakw stories to Boas, the British
Columbia Native had never gained his full confidence.
Both at the Chicago Fair and at Fort Rupert, Boas had
found Hunt difficult to deal with and too lazy to use
his brain. In 1 897, however. Hunt had come to Bella
Coola and prepared things well for Boas' arrival. Boas
did find Hunt unbelievably clumsy with the Rivers Inlet
dialect of Kwak'wala, but he had time to improve Hunt's
general orthography (Berman 1991; Cannizzo 1983;
Jacknis 1991; Rohner 1969:183, 214, 21 1, 236).

The son of an English-born Hudson's Bay Company
employee and his high-born Tlingit wife. Hunt grew up
in Fort Rupert, where his father was normally the only
white man. Although he could not necessarily con-
sider himself Kwakwaka'wakw, he was raised almost
as one. His knowledge of the Fort Rupert language
needed little qualification. He was an initiate in the
Hamatsa, the highest Kwakwaka'wakw dance soci-
ety, he acquired shaman credentials, and he might have
participated in a cannibal ceremony. For the latter he
suffered a penalty: though he was acquitted of the
charge, the trial cost him over $400 (Cole and Chaikin
1990:73-5). He twice married high-born
Kwakwaka'wakw women and raised his large family
within Indian society.

By 1 900, Boas was satisfied with Hunt and his com-
mand of language and tradition. His experience with
him that summer, when he was able to check Hunt's
versions against Brotchie's, confirmed Hunt's ability. "I
find him quite dependable, more than I had thought"
(F. Boas to M. Boas, 1 6 August 1 900). While retaining
reservations about Hunt's linguistic idiosyncrasies, his
tendency toward a formal style, and his command of
Kwak'wala grammar. Boas felt confident with Hunt's
material (Berman 1991:27-36). Hunt would continue
to send texts to Boas for the rest of his life.

Boas left Alert Bay and British Columbia satisfied.
He had a much clearer understanding of the "terribly
difficult" Kwak'wala language and was now, after work-
ing with Hunt in 1 897 and again in 1 900, in a position
to publish many of the texts he had been collecting

3 5

for six years. He thought he also had enough material
for a detailed description of the manners and customs
of the Kwakwaka'wakw. "That," he wrote, "will make
a very peculiar cultural picture" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 1 6
August 1 900).

Boas' 1 900 trip was virtually the last on the Ameri-
can side of the Jesup Expedition. Hunt and Teit would
work in their own areas over the next two years, but
the only visitor was John R. Swanton, whom Boas had
assigned to the Queen Charlotte Islands. Swanton was
a Putnam student, a well-trained Harvard Ph.D. who
had studied linguistics under Boas at Columbia.
Swanton worked for the Bureau of American Ethnol-
ogy, which paid his salary on this trip while the AMNH
paid expenses. He was instructed to study the Haida
language, religion, and social organization while he col-
lected specimens for the museum (Boas to Swanton, 5
June 1 900, AMNH, Acc. 1901-31). He left much of the
artifact collecting to the Victoria physician turned mu-
seum collector C. F. Newcombe so that he could con-
centrate on language, mythology, and ethnology.

Fieldwork in Siberia

The Asian side of the expedition was more difficult to
organize. Boas had had one man, Berthold Laufer, in
mind for the southern portion of the work since 1 895,
when Crube had mentioned his name to Boas as a
promising young scholar. Laufer, son of a Cologne con-
fectioner, was nearly finished with his degree and came
with strong recommendations from Leipzig and Berlin,
where he had studied Eastern languages, religions, and
cultures. He had, moreover, sat in on lectures by Berlin
anthropologists Adolf Bastian, Felix von Luschan, and
Eduard Seler. Unfortunately, Laufer still had before him
his military obligation. Boas, even though he as yet
had no expedition arranged, suggested that Laufer
complete his service as soon as possible so that he
would be available should a Siberian worker be re-
quired. Laufer did so, receiving his degree, magna cum
laude, while in the army. Formally appointed in May
1 897, he came early next year to New York to prepare

for his Siberian work, in March, just as he was sched-
uled to depart, the museum received word that his
visa had been refused by the Russian Interior Ministry
(see Vakhtin, this volume). Laufer was a Jew, and Jews
were not allowed into Siberia [by the Russian govern-
ment—ed.].

It was all very difficult and embarrassing. Boas had
Just arranged a large farewell reception for the trav-
eler, and Laufer might never be able to leave. Working
with urgency. Boas went to Washington to meet with
officials at the State Department, where, in Jesup's
name, he pulled all the possible strings. He touched
base with Andrew White, the U.S. representative in
Berlin, but first reliance was put on the American minis-
ter to St. Petersburg, Ethan A. Hitchcock, who spoke
with the interior minister. The minister, Ivan Goremykin,
remained immovable, replying, in every instance, "sim-
ply that it was against the law to grant such request—
Dr. Laufer being a German Jew who were prohibited
from entering Siberia." Vasily V. Radloff of the Imperial
Russian Academy of Sciences accomplished what dip-
lomats could not. He called on Grand Duke
Constantine, who served as president of the academy,
and on the governor of Siberia, then in the capital.
Suddenly, word reached New York that Laufer had, by
special permission of Tsar Nicholas II, been authorized
to visit Sakhalin and the Amur River (Zvolianski to
Olarovsky, 1 2 March 1 898, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File;
Hitchcock to Jesup, 4 April, 23 April 1 898; G. Dewollant
to Jesup, 26 April 1 898). Laufer was aboard the next
steamer. He arrived in Yokohama on May 23.

Accompanying Laufer was an archaeologist,
Gerard Fowke. Fowke was one of Putnam's un-
schooled proteges, although he had most recently
worked for W. H. Holmes and the Bureau of American
Ethnology in Washington. Already in his forties, he had
been digging mounds and other sites in the eastern
United States for over a decade. The two men were a
mismatch: Fowke, the unrefined American outdoors-
man, almost 20 years older than Laufer, with scant
university training; Laufer, the aesthetic, urbane, and

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

scholarly European (Ohio Archeological and Historical
Society 1929). Laufer, Fowke judged, was a "book-
student, 25 years old" with "no practical sense, but
any amount of theoretical knowledge'— "Can'i tie a
string, drive a nail or whittle a stick; hell of a man for a
wilderness trip!" (Fowke to W. H. Holmes, 5 March 1 898,
NAA, Folder 44).'° Fowke's attitude carried on into Si-
beria. "Laufer is a good fellow," Fowke told Boas, but,
as a fieldworker, "he is helpless." That tone enraged
Boas, who was partial to the young German. Fowke
had been sent to work with Laufer, not to sneer at him.
Even more, Fowke's archaeology had been, on his own
admission, a "dismal fizzle." He found nothing on the
Amur River, complaining that the banks were too
densely covered with vegetation to dig and that the
river had constantly changed its course. Boas was dis-
gusted but recommended that Fowke remain in Japan
for three months of excavation on shell heaps. Even
that hope of salvaging something from Fowke's ex-
pense was a failure (Fowke to Boas, 1 5 September

1898, AMNH, Acc. 1900-17; Boas to Fowke, 12 Sep-
tember 1898; Fowke 1899; Boas tojesup, 19 January

1899, AMNH,JesupEx. File).

Laufer attributed the difficulty to Fowke's unwill-
ingness to adjust. "As a true American he cannot and
will not set himself into the new Russian relationships
and rejects everything that comes his way." Laufer was
certain that, with energy and concentration, things
would be found on the Amur River (Laufer to Boas, 4
March 1899, AMNH, Acc. 1900-12).

While Fowke was dabbling on the Amur River and
then in Japan, Laufer spent eight months, from July 1 898
to March 1 899, on the east coast of Sakhalin Island
working among the Nivkh, Tungus [Uilta— ed.], and Ainu
peoples. Field conditions were difficult; travel was by
horseback, reindeer sledge, and dog sled; and for two
and a half months Laufer was ill with influenza that
turned to pneumonia. Worse yet, he could find no in-
terpreter for his ethnological work: no Nivkh knew more
than the most common Russian phrases, and the Ainu
were not very familiar with Japanese. Having traveled

down the east coast of the island, he returned north to
Nikolayevsk in time to cross the ice to the mainland
before the spring breakup. Here he settled at
Khabaravsk on the Amur River to study the Nanay,
with whom Crube had also worked. With the spring
thaw, he traveled downriver, stopping at various Nanay
and Nivkh villages until he reached the river mouth in
August. By October he had finished the season, travel-
ing over Vladivostok to Yokohama, where he spent
the remaining weeks of 1899 packing his collection
before sailing for New York (Boas 1903:93-8).

Boas found Laufer's huge assemblage of art and
artifacts exceptionally interesting. So too was Laufer
himself. Looking forward to Laufer's February arrival.
Boas confessed, "I take a great interest in the young
fellow as if he were my own young brother." Once in
the city, Laufer became the Boases' frequent guest,
often for dinner twice a week. "It is amusing," Boas
commented, "to see how my earlier feelings return with
this young fellow. He told me today that he wanted
to tear up all his Siberian work and begin it all over
again." That, Boas observed, was just the same as he
had been with his Baffin Island research. (F. Boas to S.
Boas, 1 2 January, 20 February 1 900).

Laufer's Siberian difficulties paled before those of
thejesup Expedition's northern researchers. Boas had
had problems even finding someone for the job. He
had initially been in touch with Freiherr Erwin von Zach,
an Austrian studying in Leiden." Boas was impressed
by his credentials and engaged him in May 1 897, only
to have the arrangement collapse in August. There were
doubts about von Zach's ability to endure Siberian
hardships, but Boas blamed Leiden museum director J.
D. E. Schmelz for the Austrian's withdrawal (unknown
correspondent to Boas, 21 September 1897; F. Boas
to M. Boas, 21 August 1897). Boas then fell back on
Vasily Radloff, who was later to help with Laufer's visa
problem. Radloff recommended two experienced
Siberian fieldworkers, Waldemar Jochelson and
Waldemar Bogoras (Radloff to Boas, 23 May 1898,
AMNH, Acc. 1901-70). In the summer of 1898, Boas

DOUGLAS COLE

met in Germany with Radloff and Jochelson and con-
firmed arrangements for the two Russians, who after
making equipment purchases, sailed to New Yorl< to
secure Boas' instructions and receive tutoring in
anthropometrics (see Vakhtin, this volume).

Boas found them "very curious" men, "so different"
in personality from western Europeans. Marie did not
particularly like either, in part because they kept Franz
until late in the evening and everything was put on
hold at home "until the Russians go" (F. Boas to S. Boas,
6 March 1900; M. Boas to S. Boas, 23 March 1900).
The Russians left for San Francisco in late March 1 900,
sailing then to Nagasaki and finally to Vladivostok.

Siberia was familiar territory to both Jochelson and
Bogoras. Their experience there was initially as politi-
cal exiles, and their friendship was cemented in a com-
mon attachment to Narodnaia volia (Peoples' Will), a
radical populist group that did not shun violence. Both
used their exile to study the local indigenes— avoca-
tions that became a profession. Jochelson, the elder of
the two, had spent three years in isolated confinement
before being transferred to Yakutsk and then to the
mouth of the Kolyma River on the Arctic Ocean (F.
Boas to S. Boas, 27 August 1903). He then worked
with the Yukagir with the Imperial Geographical
Society's expedition. Bogoras, with the Sibiryakov Ex-
pedition, did research on the Chukchi, which he was
now seeing through publication. At the time of his
engagement, Jochelson was registered for a doctoral
program in Switzerland, where his wife, DinaJochelson-
Brodsky, was studying medicine, but he was willing to
interrupt his work, and his wife's.

The Jochelson-Bogoras expeditions can only be de-
scribed as heroic. Arriving in Vladivostok in May 1 900,
the party split. The Bogorases went to Mariinsky Post
on the Anadyr River, the most remote Russian settle-
ment in Northeast Asia, to study the Reindeer and
Maritime Chukchi and the Asiatic Eskimo [Yupik]. Mrs.
Bogoras remained there while Waldemar Bogoras trav-
eled to the Sea of Okhotsk to meet Jochelson. There
he lent his Chukchi linguistic ability to studying the

language of the Koryak, a related group. After their
midwinter work among the Kamchatka Koryak,
Bogoras left on his own for the west coast of the
Kamchatka Peninsula to collect material from the
Itelmen [Kamchadal] and then, after more study of the
Chukchi and Yup'ik on the Chukchi Peninsula, traveled
to St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Strait. He returned
to Anadyr by Native boat, a voyage of 28 days, to
meet Mrs. Bogoras, who had remained there to make
collections along the Anadyr River valley. They left in
August for Vladivostok by steamer and, after shipping
their collections to New York, returned to St. Peters-
burg by rail. Illness delayed their departure to New
York; the couple arrived there only in April 1 902.

Jochelson and his wife Dina had an even more dif-
ficult trip. Half the winter was spent among the Mari-
time Koryak in underground dwellings filled with smoke,
stench, and lice. The other half was spent among the
interior camps of the Reindeer Koryak in bitter cold.
They had had to search out the Koryak, who had fled
to the mountains to escape an epidemic. That neces-
sitated a difficult trek by horse across the boggy tun-
dra. Summer boat trips to Tungus [Even] and Maritime
Koryak groups were accompanied by privation. The
Jochelsons stayed on, as planned, for another year to
study the Yukagir of the Kolyma region.'^ That required
a difficult 56-day trip across unmapped mountains to
famine-plagued villages, then on to Yakutsk before re-
turning to St. Petersburg via Irkutsk in the summer of
1902. They had traveled some 8,000 miles by foot,
sled, boat, or horse.

The research portion of the expedition ended in
1902, although Boas sought to fill in and round out
parts of it after that. Hunt continued to work on the
Northwest Coast, gathering texts and other informa-
tion and collecting objects for the museum not only
from the Kwakwaka'wakw but also from the Nuu-
chah-nulth [Nootka]. Teit labored on among the inte-
rior groups, collecting material for later volumes on the
Lillooet and Secwepemc [Shuswap] and on Thomp-
son myths. Otherwise, field activities for Jesup's great

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

expedition were over when the Jochelsons arrived in
Irkutsk late in the summer of 1 902 (Boas to Jochelson,
5 December 1898, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File; Boas to
Jochelson, 24 March 1900, AMNH, Acc. 1901-70).

Working Up the Results

Boas wished for more. He requested money to pay a
missionary for work among the Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka]
and, in 1905, money for Jochelson to visit the Asian
Eskimo and Aleut in order to follow up "fundamental
questions" raised by his earlier work. Boas also sought
an appropriation for research to investigate his theory
that the Tsimshian were recent arrivals on the coast
(Boas to Bumpus, 22 December 1902; Boas to Jesup,
25 November 1905, AMNH, File 293). He was unsuc-
cessful in securing funds for any of these projects.
Jochelson, however, independently succeeded in his
Aleutian ambition, with the [Russian-funded— ed.]
Riabushinski Expedition to the Aleutians and the
Kamchatka Peninsula in 1 909-1 1 .'^

Long before then, Boas had become disillusioned
with Jesup and the AMNH. The Jesup Expedition was
but part of Boas' grandiose ambitions for anthropol-
ogy in New York, and things in the museum were not
as they should be. He had problems about his own
status and salary and about museum assistance, his
"Vanishing Tribes" of North America was underfunded,
and his East Asiatic project had failed. The enormous
effort he had to spend on installation, labeling, and
cataloging, in addition to his teaching responsibilities
at Columbia University, meant that he made little
progress on his own scholarly work. His dissatisfac-
tion grew as research support stagnated or declined.
Things were going backward, with less done daily, he
wrote, yet the material was disappearing "day by day."
"I have capacity for work, but am dissatisfied at fritter-
ing away my energies in vain attempts to reach a settled
policy of work to be pressed. If the Museum cannot
assist me in these plans, my interest lags." While his
dissatisfaction included the lack of support and plan-
ning in the museum, the Jesup Expedition publications

lay "especially on my heart" (Boas to Jesup, 9 January
1902, AMNH-DA, Reports File; Boas to Bumpus, 21
February 1902, AMNH-DA, Bumpus File; F. Boas to S.
Boas, 28 February 1 902).

The Jesup Expedition memoirs had been ambitiously
projected at some 30 contributions in 1 2 volumes.
Many of those from the American side were prepared
quickly. An album of photographs, Farrand's paper on
Salish basketry designs and on the Chilcotin and
Quinault, Teit's NIaka'pamux ethnology, Smith's work
on British Columbian archaeology. Boas' facial paint-
ings and Bella Coola myths, and his and Hunt's first
KwakiutI [Kwakwaka'wakw] texts were ready by the
beginning of 1902. Still to come were further reports
by Smith, Teit's Lillooet and Shuswap [Secwepemc]
ethnologies and Thompson [NIaka'pamux] texts, sev-
eral volumes of KwakiutI work, and Swanton's Haida
ethnology and texts. For the Asian side, Laufer had
completed his slender volume on Amur decorative art,
but Jochelson and Bogoras were, after their arrival in
New York in 1902, only beginning their writing.

Publication costs had never been included in the
expedition budget, although Jesup agreed to finance
the first set of publications, at a cost of $2,000. Boas
feared that without a special appropriation, the
museum's limited publication budget, which had to
cover all competing departmental requests, would
hopelessly delay the dissemination of his valued re-
sults. In February 1902 he pleaded with museum di-
rector Hermon C. Bumpus for extraordinary money. "The
danger is again imminent that the whole enterprise,
the appreciation of which has constantly increased as
its publications progressed, will fall flat." He found it
unbearable to think that the Jesup Expedition should
be another example of an enterprise started with great
vigor but ending in disappointment. He wanted a de-
cision, once and for all. His estimate of costs was
$20,000 (Boas to Bumpus, 21 February 1 902, AMNH-
DA, Bumpus File). Boas got some of what he demanded.
Jesup agreed to finance the expedition publications
then in preparation, at an estimated cost of $4,425,

DOUGLAS COLE

should museum funds be insufficient. This was a relief,
but, all in all. Boas wrote in July 1902, it had been a
bad year: "nothing has worked out— or only a little"
(Bumpus to Jesup, 19 May 1902;Jesup note, 19 May
1 902, AMNH, File 293a; F. Boas to S. Boas, 2 July 1 902).

Worse yet, relations between President Jesup and
Curator Boas were becoming tense. Jesup now seemed
disappointed with his expedition, acting as if "nothing
will come of it." He was reluctant to agree to new
plans before results were complete, something Boas
regarded as nonsense. With this went Boas' growing
view that there was "a minimal understanding for ac-
tual scientific work ' in Jesup's museum. Then, in early
1903, the president changed his mind on the Jesup
Expedition publications: in future they would have to
be paid for from the museum's general publications
fund. Boas was devastated. "It was perhaps a harder
blow than all those that I have received in recent years"
(F. Boas to S. Boas, 4 September, 5 September 1902;
Boas to Jesup, 20 Februan/ 1903, AMNH, File 293).

Boas pleaded with Jesup to reverse a decision that
would reduce the publication program to a role en-
tirely out of keeping with the work accomplished. His
whole scientific reputation, he said, was at stake, and
"I cannot afford to have an enterprise for which I have
the responsibility, fail." He had done his part, and now
he asked Jesup "to see me through, that I may come
with honor out of the undertaking." Jesup remained
immovable. Boas had not told him at the beginning
about the large sums required for publication. The ex-
pedition was over, and it was for the museum to see
to publishing the results. He would allow enough money
in the museum budget to keep the publications in
progress, but no more. "All is now being done," wrote
Bumpus to Jesup, "that is imperatively necessary." At
least, said Boas at year's end, the publications go on
(Jesup to Boas, 24 February [1903; microfilmed as
1 900]; Bumpus to Jesup, 28 April 1 903, AMNH; F. Boas
to S. Boas, 23 December 1903).

Boas made things somewhat easier by cutting
costs. He had long thought that the museum was

paying too much to publish its memoirs. He suggested
that instead of the museum acting as its own pub-
lisher, the memoirs go to E. J. Brill in Leiden (Boas to
Bumpus, 20 February 1 903, AMNH, File 293). Bumpus
followed up the suggestion, and future volumes were
published by that house, with C. E. Stechert & Co. act-
ing as American agents. The contract cut costs sub-
stantially (Boas to Winser, 28 July 1905, AMNH. File
1905:B).'^

Jesup's reluctance to expedite publication stemmed
in large part from the accumulating costs of his expe-
dition. One thing after another had contributed to over-
runs. Boas' initial estimate had projected the expedi-
tion costs at $5,000 a year over six years, a total of
$30,000 from Jesup's pocket. In his haste to prepare
the proposal. Boas had assumed that the museum and
not the expedition would bear transportation expenses.
He had also not realized that salaries of museum staff,
such as himself and Smith, when in the field, would
have be borne by the expedition's budget and not by
the museum's. These costs upset budget projections.
Then the engagement of Bogoras and Jochelson
brought an embarrassing crisis. Boas had expected to
employ young men, like Laufer, just out of university.
The two experienced Russians would do the work
much better than untried newcomers, but they were
much more expensive. Jochelson and Bogoras were,
at ages 45 and 35, mature scientists who deserved
long-term contracts and salaries commensurate with
their standing. That meant $1 ,200 a year, compared
with young Laufer's $500. It was all very embarrassing
for Boas, but Jesup agreed to proceed with the Rus-
sians despite the enormous overrun his expedition was
suddenly facing (see also Vakhtin, this volume). Boas
now expected that work on the Asian side alone would
cost $27,667, with the entire expedition running to
almost $50,000, excluding publication costs (Boas to
Jesup, 2 November, 1 8 November 1 898, AMNH-DA,
Jesup Ex. File; Boas to Putnam, 1 December 1 898,
AMNH-DA, Putnam File). "The whole thing is somewhat
unpleasant," he confessed, "since it appears as if I made

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

a false estimate, though I can show Jesup where and
how the large expenditure comes." Jesup complained
in 1900 that he could not keep the business part of
the expedition in his head: "I only know I am advanc-
ing a pile of money in this affair & time will prove the
success of it." By 1901 Jesup's obligations, not includ-
ing publications to date, were already $53,470. Boas
was estimating that the cost, including publications,
was likely to be $75,000; he later raised it to $100,000
(Boas to Papa [Meier Boas], 31 October 1 898; Jesup to
Winser, 1 9July 1 900, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File; Winser
to Jesup, 1 April 1901 , AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File; Boas
to James H. Lamb Co., 9 November 1 900, AMNH-DA, L
File; Boas 1910b).

The toll, financial and personal, continued to mount
as relations turned sour. When Jesup made remarks criti-
cal of the expedition, Boas was outraged: "Seldom do
I get excited in conversation," he wrote, "but I became
quite angry, so much so that it was difficult for me to
remain within the borders of propriety." In Boas' mind,
Jesup's intention was to restrict his obligation so that
he would "not have to put out money for publica-
tions" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 26 November 1903).

Printing was not the only continuing cost. Bogoras
and Jochelson had been contracted to write up their
results at a monthly salary of $1 50 each. For over a
year, they worked at the museum. An attempt to get
them fellowships with the Carnegie Institution failed,
and both returned to Europe in 1 904, their contracts
altered to $1 50 per chapter. Jochelson settled in Zurich,
where his wife was completing her medical training;
Bogoras went to St. Petersburg.

Before their return to Europe, Boas had seen them
frequently, and both spent a good deal of the summer
of 1 903 with him at his Lake George retreat. Boas re-
vised his earlier ambiguous opinion of Bogoras, "who
became very attractive upon longer acquaintance." He
was a man of fine sensitivity, intelligence, and enthusi-
asm, Boas wrote, and his whole life and aspiration were
directed to political ideals, a drive to implement them
and, if necessary, to sacrifice for them. Jochelson, too.

became likable on closer acquaintance. He went out
every day to pick up the newspaper because, as
Jochelson himself said, "In Russia the unexpected may
happen at any time and I think that any day a constitu-
tion could be promulgated" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 26
October 1 902, 9 October 1 903; F. Boas to S. Boas, 27
August 1 903).

Jochelson's writing was slow but regular. Bogoras,
caught up in revolutionary 1905 St. Petersburg,
stopped his entirely. For long periods, he ceased even
to write letters. "I have had nothing from Bogoras for a
month," Jochelson wrote Boas, and "that concerns us
very much." Boas finally received a letter from Bogoras
that excused his neglect. "But you will understand that
an epoch like this happens only once in many centu-
ries for every state and nation and we feel ourselves
torn away with the current even against our will." Boas
lectured him about priorities: "If events like the present
happen only once in a century, an investigation by Mr.
Bogoras of the Chukchee [Chukchi] happens only once
in eternity, and I think you owe it to science to give us
the results of your studies."

April brought another long silence. Boas was again
concerned, especially because he had read in the pa-
per that Bogoras had been arrested but then released.
Boas' worry was not merely for the man's safety. "Dur-
ing the present excitement in Russia I am sure he will
not give any time to his scientific situation." Boas would
have liked to have had him out of Russia so he could
concentrate on his work. A letter in November from
Bogoras brought renewed regrets at the lack of progress
but no change of mind. "Events that are going on in
Russia request from all citizens their best attention and
ability." Things were so dreadful, victims so numerous,
that he felt no right to retreat from the struggle. At 40,
he had time ahead to finish all yet to be written. He
would have to be forgiven: "my mind and soul have
no free place to let in science." On December 4 Boas
received a cable from Moscow that Bogoras had been
arrested. He wired St. Petersburg, asking Radloff s as-
sistance in securing the revolutionary anthropologist's

DOUGLAS COLE

release. Slowly the details came out. Bogoras had been
arrested as a participant in the Peasants' Congress but
had been released on bail after two weeks. He had
returned to St. Petersburg and had then gone on to
Finland, where he gradually returned to his scholar-
ship. Jochelson, too, was affected by the revolution,
and, lacking "the necessary calm," his writing slowed.
Even from afar, Russia's internal turmoil had an upset-
ting influence. "You know, of course, that next to the
researcher stands in me a citizen" Oochelson to Boas, 7
March 1905, AMNH-DA, Jochelson File; Bogoras to
Boas, 6 April 1905; Boas to Bogoras, 22 April 1905,
AMNH-DA, Bogoras File; Boas to Jochelson, 28 Sep-
tember, 13 October 1905; Bogoras to Boas, 23 No-
vember 1905, AMNH-DA, Bogoras File; Jochelson to
Boas, 7 March, 1 0 June, 8 May, 29 August 1 905, AMNH-
DA,Jochelson File).

If 1 905 was a memorable year for the Russians, it
was also for Boas. The previous summer, he had trav-
eled to Europe, where he had an opportunity to con-
sult with E. J. Brill about the Jesup publications, to visit
Stuttgart for the 1 4th Congress of Americanists (1 904),
and to meet there with Jochelson, Bogoras, and oth-
ers. The last day of the congress was largely taken up
with papers on the Jesup Expedition from Boas and
Jochelson and a complementary one from Leo
Shternberg. "I presided that day," Boas wrote the
museum's director, "and feel very well satisfied with
the reception that the works of the Expedition received."
On his return to New York, however, he determined
that he could no longer carry on both his museum and
university responsibilities. "I simply can no longer fill
both posts" (Boas to Bumpus, 30 August 1 904, AMNH,
File 293; F. Boas to S. Boas, 25 October 1904).

Much as he was attached to the museum projects
he had initiated, and no matter how integral the mu-
seum had become to his teaching program, the insti-
tution had lost its allure. The prospect of meaningful
activity there was hopeless. He no longer had faith in
Jesup. The parting was complicated, and in the end
Boas angrily resigned from the museum in April 1 905,

but with continuing responsibilities for the Jesup Expe-
dition publications. Difficulties between Boas and Di-
rector Bumpus, however, required a more precise de-
lineation of Boas' role and led to an even greater breach
in the strained cordiality between Boas and Jesup.

Boas insisted that payment to him, irrespective of
the published amount, should never fall below the
$4,000 he had counted on as his annual museum re-
muneration. This insistence touched a sensitive Jesup
nerve. All Boas' previous appeals had been expressed,
the museum president noted, as concern for the means
to sustain his scientific work and for funds to support
his scientific reputation. The tone had altered, and Jesup
expressed his great disappointment at "the present
condition of an enterprise that has involved expense
and anxiety out of all proportion to the representa-
tions that were originally made." Jesup was confident
that he had himself always acted with "the utmost
liberality and fairness" and felt that Boas was not now
living up to his commitment. He felt sorrow at "the
many disappointments that have come to me in con-
nection with this expedition" (Jesup to Osborne, 30
April 1906, AMNH, File 293b).

The final agreement contracted Boas to complete
the expedition series by 1911 for a stipulated pay-
ment per published signature, the total cost not to
exceed $25,000 (Agreement of 31 May 1906, signed
by Boas on 8 June 1 906). Boas, for his part, was scorn-
ful of the whole business. The contract, he wrote, "is
like that for building a house; goods to be paid on
delivery, and the shoddier my work, the better finan-
cially for me! True Bumpus-Jesup style" (Boas to Putnam,
23 June 1906, HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 1 4).' ^ The new
arrangement might have expedited publication— all
involved were now being paid according to results—
but it did not.

Expedition Publications' Later History

Relations between the AMNH and Boas were chilly,
even frigid, after 1 906. His difficulties with the mu-
seum had destroyed his desire to get on with the Jesup

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

publications. Two volumes were about to appear, but
there would follow a long pause, since he had done
no work for two years. "The fault lies in the obstruc-
tionism in the museum" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 23 June
1910). Indeed, "if I could do so in a way consistent
with my scientific commitments, I would simply dump
the whole Jesup Expedition and concern myself no fur-
ther with it" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 1 8 March 1 909).

But he could not drop it; he had too much invested
and too many commitments to it. The material from
the Russian side came in fitfully, and Boas worked on
it, sometimes just as fitfully. Despite delays, some of
the Russian material was so extensive that Boas had
to find outlets beyond the restricted confines of the
Jesup Expedition Series, under the AMNH Memoirs.
Bogoras was certainly the most productive. His Chukchi
ethnology had come out in three installments by 1 909;
the Chukchi mythology was published in 1910 and
the Siberian Eskimo [Yup'ik] folktales in 1 91 3. His Koryak
texts and Chukchi grammar were essentially complete
by 1914. Jochelson's Koryak ethnology was in print
by 1 908, but his Aleutian-Kamchatka expedition of
1 909-1 0 delayed his work on the Yukagir volume. The
most remiss was Shternberg, who had been added
belatedly to write on the Amur River groups he knew
from exile and expeditionary study. He did send the
first part of his manuscript to Boas in 1912, but even it
was never published (see Kan, this volume).

Then the outbreak of World War I [in 1914] made
communications between New York and Russia almost
impossible and severely interrupted mail to and from
E.J. Brill, the Dutch publisher. The AMNH extended Boas'
contract to 1916 and then again. The Russian Revolu-
tion and its aftermath disrupted things even further.
Boas' contact with his Russian collaborators was rees-
tablished only in September 1 921 . Boas gathered food
and clothing in New York for Jochelson, Shternberg,
and Bogoras, and the latter two were given $300 to-
ward their work. The following year, the Jochelsons
came to the United States, where their scholarship was
supported by the AMNH, the Carnegie Institution, and

private assistance arranged by Boas, largely through
financier Felix Warburg. During this time, Jochelson was
able to publish part of his Aleutian Islands archaeol-
ogy (Jochelson 1 925), to see his Jesup Expedition Yukagir
volume through the press (Jochelson 1 926), and to write
a handbook. Peoples of Asiatic Russia (ioche\son 1 928),
for the AMNH. Mrs. Jochelson was given money and
space in the museum to continue her anthropometric
work, although no publications seem to have resulted.
[Dina Jochelson-Brodsky's manuscript, "On the Anthro-
pometry of the Native Peoples of (Northeast) Siberia,"
was prepared for the Jesup Expedition Series as Part 2
of Volume 1 1 but was never published; see also Krup-
nik, this volume— ed.]

The war and postarmistice conditions in Europe
absorbed a great deal of Boas' attention and robbed
him of scholarly concentration. Like Bogoras and
Jochelson, he could not sever himself from political
concerns, as a patriotic American with strong German
sympathies and commitments. The Jesup publications
limped along, hampered by war, revolution, and re-
construction and squeezed in among Boas' many other
concerns, none of which included the writing of a con-
cluding volume.

When Jesup died in 1908, his widow expressed a
wish to see the final volume soon, but Boas was unin-
terested. "I have sworn to myself that I will not write
the volume until all material is published" (F. Boas to S.
Boas, 9 July 1909). It is doubtful that by 1909 he was
any longer committed to writing it. He could maintain
a workman's duty to scientific responsibilities, but his
passions were elsewhere.

Such a project, moreover, ran against Boas'
temperamental difficulty with the sustained treatment
of the broad sweep. At least as much of a factor
was his deep hostility to the AMNH, which endured
beyond Bumpus' departure and Jesup's death. This
combination of temperament and hostility was
enough to prevent the completion of a summary
volume, but the delayed Siberian results allowed
Boas to procrastinate. As his other commitments

DOUGLAS COLE

multiplied, the nonappearance of a fitting conclusion
was almost predetermined.

Evaluation

Assessment of Boas' Jesup North Pacific Expedition is
difficult. The research was never as complete as Boas
would have wished, and new problems arose that
could not be explored. The results were never fully
published, introducing another complication. Moreover,
evaluation must tread the fine line between legitimate
historical perspective and superficial hindsight.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition was, in many
ways, two quite different projects: a North American
one, and a Siberian one (Krupnik 1 996). On the Ameri-
can side, the expedition can be viewed as a well-en-
dowed continuation of Boas' previous research. AMNH
support and Jesup's money allowed Boas to add ar-
chaeology to his research tools; otherwise the Ameri-
can work was an extension of his previous methods
and strategy. "I am going to continue my previous
work without practically changing my plans at all," he
told W. J. McCee in 1897, "but since I have ampler
funds than heretofore, I shall be able to work to better
advantage" (1 2 April 1 897, NAA-BAE).

His old collaborators, Teit and Hunt, went on in
much the same way as they had before the Jesup Ex-
pedition and as they would continue to do after its
close. Research concentrated on Boas' Central Coast
and southern interior interests, stretching only slightly
northward to include the Haida and, quite superficially,
the Chilcotin, Quinault, and Quileute to the south. The
areas touched on lightly by the expedition— those of
the Nuu-chah-nulth, Quinault, Quileute, Tsimshian, and
Southern Athapaskan groups— were those on which
he had done little or nothing before 1 897.

But most serious was the neglect of Alaskan groups.
The Alaska Eskimo and Aleut had earlier been desig-
nated as part of the expedition, but no research ap-
propriation was listed beside them (see Fig. 3; Boas to
Jesup, 2 November 1898, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File).
The justification for the omission was that accounts of

other investigations among these groups were acces-
sible (Boas 1901:357, 1 908:1 298). The reference pre-
sumably was to Smithsonian work, probably to W. H.
□all's work on Alaskan groups, especially the Aleut, in
the 1870s; more certainly to John Murdoch's work in
the 1 880s on the Point Barrow Eskimo (Murdoch 1 892);
and, most importantly, to E. W. Nelson's then unpub-
lished study of the Bering Strait Eskimo (Nelson 1 899).
Boas did seek some "ancient" Alaskan Eskimo mate-
rial, especially skulls and bones, from Captain Minor
Bruce in 1899 and-bought part of his existing collec-
tion (Boas to Bruce, 1 April 1 899, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex.
File; AMNH, Acc. 1899-13). In 1901 Boas expressed
the hope that it might still be possible for the expedi-
tion to do a systematic investigation of prehistoric
sites along the Yukon River and the neighboring
coastland in order to discern whether a pre-Eskimo
culture or type existed in the area (Boas 1 901). By then,
however, the expedition was all but over, and Jesup
was unwilling to extend its scope.

Essentially, however, Boas did not consider the Es-
kimo to be part of the Jesup Expedition problem. The
Siberian Eskimo [Yupik] were themselves interesting,
and Boas asked Bogoras to survey them and make
collections from among them, but only if the opportu-
nity offered, since they were "not primary objects" of
the expedition (Boas to Jochelson, 26 March 1900,
AMNH, Acc. 1 901 -70). In all this, there is a consistent
lack of interest in the Eskimo. At the AMNH, Boas con-
tinued his interest in the Eastern Canadian Inuit that
had been his first love, working with visiting Labrador
and Greenland Natives and using his old friends George
Comer and James S. Mutch to gather material, but he
never seriously considered using the Jesup project to
study the place of the Eskimo and Aleut in connec-
tions between Siberia and North America.

The Indians of southern Alaska had been included
in the initial plans, with Boas apparently intending to
do the work there himself (Boas to Jesup, 1 9 January
1 897; Boas to Putnam, 1 1 February 1 897, HUA, Putnam
Papers). In 1 898 Fowke was to do archaeological

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

excavations in northern British Columbia and southern
Alaska, but he was dispatched to Siberia instead (Boas
to Fowke, 7 April, 1 1 April 1 898, AMNH, Acc. 1 900-
1 7). There were few accounts of the Tlingit except for
a limited yet very good one by Boas' old Berlin friend
Aurel Krause (Krause 1 885). The museum did have "a
mass of manuscript material" on that southeastern
Alaska group, but it belonged to G. T. Emmons and
was not accessible even to Boas. Emmons seemed
"to know a great deal," and his manuscript would ulti-
mately become the museum's property, but Boas knew,
or soon came to think, that he could provide informa-
tion only on "industries and history" and little pertain-
ing "to their arts or to their inner life," let alone anthro-
pometrics, linguistics, or even mythology. Yet Boas did
not "feel like spending money in that country as long
as this work has been done" (Boas to Swanton, 4 April
1901, AMNH, Acc. 1901-31; Boas to Bumpus, 1 1 No-
vember 1 903, AMNH-DA, Bumpus File; Boas to Farrand,
20 June 1 903, AMNH-DA, Farrand File).'^ A factor in the
neglect of the Tlingit may simply have been that the
museum already had rich artifact collections from that
group. The same was true of the Alaska Eskimo, but
the main reason for their omission was that Boas thought
the Eskimo a late arrival in the area and thus irrelevant
to ancient North Pacific problems.

The American research itself, then, was very un-
even. The published results form no coherent corpus.
Boas' facial painting piece (1 898a) was entirely con-
cerned with problems of decorative art, something that
was then a major concern of his. His Bella Coola my-
thology (1 898b) did attempt to place that anomalous
Salish-speaking group within its central coastal rela-
tionships, but it was almost as much a methodologi-
cal study on acculturation and diffusion, and it led no-
where near intercontinental relationships. The
Kwakwaka'wakw texts he published with Hunt were
enduring salvage contributions to the primary materi-
als of anthropological interpretation but, again, were
part of his long-term interest in that group and did
little to elucidate any broad generic relationships. His

Kwakwaka'wakw ethnography dealt almost exclu-
sively with industrial and domestic pursuits and is much
more a complementary volume to his earlier The So-
cial Organization and tlie Secret Societies of the
Kwakiutl Indians (Boas 1 897) than a contribution to
broader questions.

Farrand's work was thin and peripheral. His Salish
basketry design piece was concerned with decora-
tive art, and his Quinault study (Farrand and Kahnweiler
1 902) made a minor contribution toward placing that
small Salish-speaking group in context. His work on
the Chilcotin (Farrand 1900)— the only Athapaskan
group at all studied— revealed only a receptivity to
neighbors' traditions. Boas only later realized that more
attention needed to be given to the wide-ranging
Athapaskans, especially those of the far north (Boas
1 91 Oa, 1 940:336). Smith's Salish archeology was sug-
gestive, but misinterpreted (see Thom, this volume).
His cranial finds reinforced Boas' propensity to think
the Salish a coastal intrusion from the interior, most
likely a mistaken idea.''

In contrast, no burden of history— neither Boas' pre-
vious interests nor existing museum collections— dis-
turbed the expedition's objectives on the Asian side.
There the expedition was much more productive and
suggestive of relationships. Laufer, Boas' favored
"younger brother," contributed little except for collec-
tions. This, too, was in large part Boas' fault. He was so
eager to keep the young man in New York as part of
his East Asiatic project that Laufer was, in June 1 901 ,
sidetracked to a quite separate Chinese expedition
that occupied him foryears. His single substantial Jesup
Expedition publication. Decorative Art of the Amur
Tribes, was "disappointingly spare" (Kendall
1988:1 04). '8 Even his excellent collection, largely
undescribed by its collector, remains relatively mute.

Enormously more substantial were the contribu-
tions of Bogoras and Jochelson. Both Jochelson's Koryak
(1908) and Bogoras' Chukchee (1904-09) were ex-
tended ethnographic treatments, and Bogoras went
on to compilations of Chukchi, Asian Eskimo, and other

DOUGLAS COLE

myths and an extended treatment of the Chukchi lan-
guage in later contributions. The two had also returned
with huge accumulations of artifacts— collections for
their groups that remain superior to any others, even
those in Russia (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:15). As
important, some of the Russians' findings allowed Boas
to draw far-reaching conclusions on the great prob-
lem that was the expedition's focus.

On the American side, only Boas was involved
enough to take a comprehensive view. The Russian
collaborators, to whom Boas had introduced Ameri-
can material, were much more attracted to the funda-
mental problem of Boas' project. Even if they pursued
their own research agendas (Krupnik 1 996), their Jesup
work coincided, over the long term, with Boas'.

The two Russians were struck at least as much as
Boas by the closeness of northwestern American to
northeastern Asiatic folklore. They became certain that
there had to have been either close contact or a kin-
dred origin, and probably both in earlier times (Bogoras
1 902:669; Jochelson 1906:125). Bogoras found ideas
characteristic of the American Northwest Coast pre-
vailing far into Siberia, so much so that he wrote, "from
an ethnographical point of view, the line dividing Asia
and America lies far southwestward of Bering strait"
(Bogoras 1902:579).

Boas reviewed the Siberian evidence, compared it,
as Bogoras and Jochelson had, with his own collec-
tions of Northwest myths, and reached the same con-
clusion. The Koryak, Chukchi, and Itelmen formed one
race with the Northwest Coast tribes. The unity had
been much greater in earlier times, but "enough re-
mains to lead us to think that the tribes of this whole
area must be considered as a single race, or at least
that their culture is a single culture, which at one time
was found in both the northeastern part of the Old
World and the northwestern part of the New World"
(Boas 1 903:1 1 5). Traditions showed far-reaching con-
formity between the two regions and the interrela-
tionship of motifs was beyond doubt. Boas cited par-
ticularly the "magic flight" theme and the widespread

prominence of Raven as ancestor and creator. Nor could
the languages of the two areas be separated: the speech
of the Asian groups inclined more toward American
than toward Central Asian, and if a linguistic division
were to be made, eastern Siberian languages were
best grouped with those of America. All evidence from
physical anthropology tended toward the same con-
clusion (Boas 1908, 1910b).2°

Later events had broken the ancient homogeneity.
Just as Tungus and Sakha [Yakut] people had reduced
the area once occupied by these related tribes of Si-
beria, migrations had broken the continuities on the
American side. The Salish along the Fraser River and
adjacent coasts were a recent intrusion; so too were
the Tsimshian, who seemed originally to have been an
interior people more akin to the Shoshone and
Kootenay. Both, however, had been assimilated into
general Northwest Coast culture. The Eskimo, on the
other hand, were a more obvious intrusion, a sharply
defined physical type, essentially different from their
neighbors, who further broke the North Pacific con-
tinuum. Though Eskimo material culture was very close
to that of the Chukchi, their language and physical
type were quite different from those of the Siberians
and Americans. The Eskimo did have elements of my-
thology in common with other coastal people, but
these appeared to be an "essentially recent acquisi-
tion" (Boas 1908, 1910b).

Some of these conclusions are plausible so far as
anthropology and archaeology are able to interpret
the obscure past. A school of recent scholarship ar-
gues for a tripartite division of Americans: Northwest
Coast groups, along with neighboring Athapaskans,
may be the descendents of a separate migration from
Asia; other American Indians are seen to be descended
from a Paleo-lndian group, likely the earliest migrants,
who formed the initial, widespread, Paleo-lndian Clovis
population; and the Eskimo and Aleut, descendants of
Eskaleut ancestors, constitute the third broad group.^'
This would support the view of the Eskimo as a dis-
continuity, although the thesis is increasingly contested

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

by others using different evidence. The Tsimshian and
Coast Salish discontinuities are more dubious.

Within this general schema, however, Boas was led
to several other conclusions. He was persuaded, ap-
parently on the basis of Jochelson's and Bogoras' find-
ings, supported by the research of Leo Shternberg, that
the commonality of the Northwest Coast and Siberia
came from a reverse postglacial migration. Boas
seemed convinced that the Siberian groups were an
offshoot of American peoples (Boas 1910a, 1912,
1940:325, 337; Shternberg 1906:138). This idea, the
"Americanoid" theory, receives no current support."
Boas was even more certain that the Eskimo were an
American people, recent invaders from the eastern
Arctic. They had, he thought, been driven northward
by the Athapaskan and thus descended to the Arctic
coast (Boas 1891, 1908:1301). 'The much discussed
theory of the Asiatic origin of the Eskimo," he wrote in
1 91 0, "must be entirely abandoned" (Boas 1 91 0a:537).
However, the dogmatism was usually tempered with
a wish for archaeological confirmation that an earlier,
non-Eskimo type had inhabited Alaska (Boas 1902,
1908, 1910b, 1936). Boas' insistence is curious. He
recognized the strongly "mongoloid" physical type of
the Eskimo, their very strong maritime cultural similar-
ity with the Koryak and Chukchi, and the possible con-
nection of Yukon pottery with Siberia (Boas 1904,
1 91 Oa, 1 940:341 ), but he never committed himself to
any detailed sorting out of the relationships, and his
insistence on a central Arctic origin for the Eskimo
goes back to his conclusions of the mid-1 880s (Boas
1 883:1 1 8, 1 888). The view was endorsed by Bogoras
and Jochelson, both of whom wrote of the Eskimo as
a wedge that split the trunk of the common tree
(Bogoras 1 902:670; Jochelson 1908:359). Eskimo ori-
gin was, as a later anthropologist noted, Boas' idee
fixe (Drucker 1 955:60). Boas could be a stubborn, even
opinionated man: once he grasped a notion, he tended
not to let it go.

Part of his difficulty was understandable ignorance.
The Alaskan Eskimo were imperfectly known. He noted

DOUGLAS COLE

the paucity of knowledge of Eskimo mythology west
of the Mackenzie River that prevented "a clear insight
into the main characteristics of the folklore of the west-
ern Eskimo" (Boas 1 902, 1 904, 1 91 Oa:530). Boas prob-
ably thought the Alaskan Eskimo to be more similar to
his Central Eskimo than they actually were. The unifor-
mity of Eskimo culture was "remarkable," and although
he cited "a certain amount of differentiation" west of
the Mackenzie River, he attributed it to influence from
Indian neighbors (Boas 1910a:537).

Another difficulty was that Boas was working with-
out adequate archaeology, and, had he pursued ar-
chaeological research in Alaska and northern Siberia,
the methods of the time would probably not have
revealed the necessary data. He was also hampered
by a too-recent view of ethnic relationships. He tended,
understandably, to project historical entities back into
remote prehistory. He continued— despite his concern
with acculturation and diffusion, despite his attempt
at historical depth— to lapse into thoughts of migra-
tions of peoples more or less congruent with historical
divisions. Although he made salient the idea that tribes
were not stable units lacking in historical development
but cultures in constant flux, each influenced by its
nearer and more distant neighbors in space and in time
(Boas 1908:1296-7, 1910b:8), he could not totally
free himself from that fallacy. While northwestern In-
dian ancestry reaches back to the Old World, recent
archaeology has shown the great age of culture in the
region and its continuity from its first discernible
forms to its appearance at European contact. Current
thought tends to the view of stability of population in
the region over a long time, with an emphasis on con-
tinuity that almost discards migration models (Carlson
1990:69, 115; Fladmark 1986:5).

The expedition did establish some of the affinities
it sought between Paleoasiatic groups in Siberia and
the Northwest Coast Indians and their interior neigh-
bors. Similarities of bows, housing, watercraft, harpoons,
and body armor, for example, could be found on each
side of the North Pacific. Elements, even structures, of

4 7

mythologies were strikingly similar. That much seemed
true. On the other hand, Boas was blinded by his idea
of Eskimo origin and remained ignorant of the com-
plexities of Alaskan relationships. He (and Jochelson)
willfully dismissed counterevidence of Eskimo partici-
pation in North Pacific culture."

The Siberian expeditions led Boas to important in-
tercontinental hypotheses. They also, in the work of
Bogoras and the Jochelsons, made permanent contri-
butions with long-term effects. Events hindered the full
completion of the Russians' projects. Shternberg's work
on the Amur tribes never reached publication, nor did
Bogoras' on the Itelmen. Only a small portion of the
Siberian anthropometry was published. Yet the corpus
was significant, probably far more than the Northwest
American material, and, as important, the Jesup Expe-
dition spurred Bogoras and Jochelson into continuing
activity. Moreover, theirs was the only concern with
intercontinental connections for a generation or more.

Since no final summary volume appeared, we have
only sketchy and fragmentary suggestions of Boas'
conclusions. His comparisons drew on similarities of
material culture and mythology and on vaguely de-
scribed physical and linguistic similarities. Even these
did not entirely support his conclusions: he was forced
to acknowledge but dismiss the importance of Chukchi
and Eskimo similarities. The conclusions that he pub-
lished in conference papers or journal articles after the
expedition's end ventured only a little beyond the evi-
dence he had used between 1 895 and 1 897 to urge
it. The material gathered, important as it was and is,
probably could not have sustained much more. That,
as much as any other factor, may have determined the
nonappearance of the summary volume.

Conclusion

The Jesup Expedition proved a disappointment for
Morris K. Jesup and for his museum. Boas, too, was
disillusioned, much more by the museum and Jesup
than with the expedition itself. While he remained proud
of its accomplishments, it had not unfolded in the way

he foresaw, and its publications went on interminably,
inconclusively. Worse, he never was able to fill in the
research gaps. It has taken almost a century for the
resuscitation and redemption of the Jesup project.

The Jesup Expedition's limitations are clear. In a per-
haps ironic way, Boas had foreseen that the slow,
steady results of his "historical method" would not be
dazzling. Even measured by its aspirations and pro-
spectus, however, its success was limited. The answers
to its research questions never went much beyond
the postulates that formed the question. On the North-
west Coast, it was an extension, "by ampler means,"
of his earlier program, one which then continued, in
Hunt and Teit's ethnological gatherings, in Leo
Frachtenberg's painstaking linguistic research, and in
Hermann Haeberlin's precociously brilliant essays on
art. The Siberian story was somewhat different. There,
the expedition sustained the work of two, or even
three, pioneering anthropologists. Jochelson and
Bogoras, almost alone among Jesup participants (Boas
himself being the only other), not only practiced their
"historical method" but extended their imagination to
embrace the intercontinental context of the project.
The impact of the Jesup Expedition had its limitations
within scholarship on the North American area, but the
consequences for Siberian scholarship have been much
more significant and enduring.

Appendix A

Franz Boas to Morris K. Jesup,
President,

American Museum of Natural IHistory,
Jan. 19th, 1897

Dear Sir,

One of the most important problems of American an-
thropology is that of the influence between the cul-
tures of the Old and of the New World. Investigations
on this problem have mostly been confined to com-
parisons between the ancient cultures of Central Amer-
ica and of South Eastern Asia. The comparative study
of that region in which contact and transmission of

PERSPECTIVES/ NORTH AMERICA

5/ Franz Boas, 1858-1942 (AMNH 2A5161)

1 1/ Waldemar Bogoras, with his native guides on the Kolyma River, Siberia, 1 895 (AMNH 22402)

5 4

14/ Dina and Waldemar Jochelson in their field tent in Eastern Siberia. Photo ca. 1 896.
Note the drying negative plates on a small rack on the table (AMNH 2A1 3549)

1 5/ Dina Jochelson-Brodsky emerging from native sod-covered hut, summer 1 900 (AlVlNH 337626)

1 8/ Bogoras and Russian Cossacks on the Anadyr River, summer 1 900 (AlVINH 2654)

21 / N.C. Buxton in Gizhiga, Siberia, flanked by the local Russian officer and his secretary, spring 1 901 (AMNH
22089)

22/ Harlan I. Smith during his excavations at the Great Fraser Midden, Eburne, British Columbia
(AMNH 42964)

Itonn ,- ■ ■ ■ -

23/ Dina Jochelson-Brodsky and native guides in the Jochelsons' field camp among the Reindeer Koryak,
1 901 . W. Jochelson, photographer (AMNH 41 48)

culture has most probably taken place has never been
taken up in a thorough manner.

Fragmentary studies of the Ethnology of the tribes
of the North Pacific Coast reaching on the Asiatic side
from the Amoor [River] to the Behring Strait and on the
American side from Columbia River to Behring Strait
have proved beyond reasonable doubt, that there are
certain cultural elements in common to all the tribes of
this region. The bows, the armors, the method of build-
ing canoes may be given as instances. The mytholo-
gies of the people of this extensive region show also
very peculiar points of similarity which suggest an early
communication. Close analogies between Siberian tales
and such from British Columbia and particularly tales
collected among the Ainos of Yezzo [Hokkaido island-
ed.], the Kamchadeles and the Indians of Vancouver
Island have been noticed. The whole question, how-
ever, is by no means definitely settled and cannot be
solved until all the tribes of this region have been thor-
oughly investigated. We also know that the physical
type of the inhabitants of the North Pacific coast of
America resembles Asiatic types more than any other
American race.

Both the Asiatic and the American sides of the North
Pacific Ocean have one important peculiarity in com-
mon. They are inhabited by numerous tribes speaking
a great diversity of languages, only a few of which are
known. I have indicated on the accompanying
sketchmap the distribution of tribes and languages.
Those spoken on the Asiatic side are practically un-
known, and all of them are disappearing. We do not
know if any similarity of structure between these lan-
guages and American languages exists, but we must
admit the possibility of this being the case. The interior
of the Asiatic side is inhabited by people speaking
allied languages. The diversity of language does not
extend beyond the coast region. The same is the case
in America. In short, there are so many points of simi-
larity between the tribes of this whole region that we
are justified in expecting that here a mutual influence
between the cultures of the Old and the New World

DOUGLAS COLE

has existed. Thus a foundation for the solution of this
important problem with all its important bearings upon
the ancient civilisation of America may be laid in this
region.

A systematic investigation of the whole problem
will have to include the following points:

1. An ethnographical study and the making
of ethnographical collections of the tribes on
the American side.

2. An ethnographical study and the making
of ethnographical collections of the tribes on
the Asiatic side.

3. An exploration of the immense shell
mounds, and of ancient monuments on the
North Pacific coast of both continents.

The study of this subject on the Asiatic side re-
quires a thorough knowledge of Chinese and Mongol
ethnology and languages. That in the region of Behring
Strait a thorough knowledge of American ethnology
and of the Eskimo language. Farther south work is
particularly needed in southern Alaska and in the States
of Oregon and Washington.

So far as collecting is concerned, this region is one
of the few, where a vast amount of material may still
be gathered at comparatively slight expense. This is
true particularly in the region of Behring Strait, among
the Chukchee, the Koryak, and more than anywhere
else on the Amoor River. But in all these regions the
culture of the people is disappearing rapidly and the
whole work is becoming more difficult from year to
year.

I have made an approximate estimate of the ex-
pense of exploration in this region and judge that at
an expenditure for field work of $5000 a year for six
years the whole region may be covered with fair thor-
oughness. [HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 16].

Appendix B

Franz Boas to Frederic W. Putnam,
February 1 1, 1897

This letter would have to be about 1 0 pages long, if I
wanted to say all I have to say; but I want to be brief
and leave all details until your next visit here.

6 5

Mr. Jesup called me down to his office the day
before yesterday and told me that he could not give
me any money for this year's trip to the North Pacific
Coast, except that he would give me 2 months leave
of absence— and that very reluctantly only and place
at my disposal $250.00 with which to make collec-
tions for the Museum and that he would get me free
transportation. I have to give up one month's salary.

Furthermore he told me that he wished to take up
the general plan of exploration on the North Pacific
Coast and instructed me to consult with you and to
propose a detailed scheme of work for the carrying
out of the plan. He also asked me, if anything could be
done this year and I requested that I might do some
things, but that it would be best probably to begin
systematic work in Siberia not until next spring.

Now there are two matters for which I must work.
The first and less important (although very important
for me) is, that I stay away longer and utilize my time,
because it would be absurd to go to B.C. for 2 months.
I wish to make a plan which I can present to Mr. Jesup
putting the matter in such a way that I keep the work
for the B.A.A.S. [the North-Western Tribes Committee
of the British Association for the Advancement of Sci-
ence] entirely distinct of all the rest and then put in a
couple of months or at least six weeks on work for the
proposed Jesup Expedition, which will be a great thing,
if it is to embrace the whole work of ethnological ex-
ploration of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Jesup looks at
this proposed expedition in the light that it will be the
greatest thing ever undertaken by any Museum either
here or abroad and that it will give the Institution an
unequalled standing in scientific circles. I will not make
any proposition in this letter but must talk the matter
over with you in detail when you come here. My gen-
eral idea is to present the matter in such a way that I
commence the work on this side this summer, that at
the end of each year enough material should be accu-
mulated to allow us to make a report of the collection
which will be a material addition to our knowledge
and thus to keep the interest in the subject.

The second point is the making of a detailed plan
of work. In order to do this intelligently I must go to
Washington to get certain information which I want to
present to you when you come here. But first of all we
must find the men to do the work when the matter
comes to the point. My idea is almost as follows: Judg-
ing from what you said you might include Mr. Dixon to
prepare specially for ethnographic work among the
Chukchee, Eskimo and Yukageer.'^'' Would he be ready
to take the field for a whole year beginning next spring?
(a year from May). Then we must engage a student of
Mongol languages who must be imported in order to
do the work on the Amoor; and at present I am the
best man for southern Alaska & B.C. and farther south.
Our prime endeavor now must be to impress Mr. Jesup
with the necessity of having trained specialists do the
work, and not give it to adventurers or people with
superficial knowledge. I have written a bunch of let-
ters to American Orientalists asking, if there is any good
young man who has devoted himself to the study of
Mongol Ethnology. And I have written abroad for this
purpose. You are aware that I have a certain young
man in mind who I think will be first class, but I shall
wait until I obtain full information." These are the two
fundamental points I wished to write about.

Mr. Jesup instructed me to ask your consent to
my proposed trip. I hope you will not object to my
going away for 2 months and I trust you will show
Mr Jesup that it is desirable for me to stay away for
four months. . . .[HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 8].

Notes

1 . All subsequent correspondence that is
uncited as to repository is from the Boas Papers,
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Marie
Boas (Boas' wife) and Sophie Boas (his mother) are
abbreviated as M. Boas and S. Boas, respectively.

2. But compare Boas' own statement: "I in-
terested Jesup only through Villard" (F. Boas to S.
Boas, 27 November 1900). In discussing several
issues throughout the paper, I am indebted to
previously published work on the Jesup Expedi-
tion: Jonaitis (1 988); Freed et al. (1 988a, 1 988b).

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

3. See also Boas to parents, 1 9 January 1 897.

4. The letter is reproduced in Appendix B.

5. The English version, translated by Dietrich
Bertz from German for the British Columbia Indian
Language Project, remains unpublished, although
typescript copies are available in a few reposito-
ries. Boas' conclusions were summarized and elabo-
rated in the Journal of American Folk-Lore (Boas
1896a) and reprinted in Boas 1940:425-36.

6. Crube's article is cited in Boas 1 897:663n.
The Steller description is also in the conclusion of
Indianische Sagen (Boas 1 895a).

7. See his more forceful conclusion and insis-
tence on research in "contiguous areas" in Boas
1896b.

8. Both Boas' paper in the Folk-Lore Journal
(1896a) and his AAAS paper (1896b) were in-
tended in part as a refutation of Daniel Brinton's
ultraorthodox view of independent invention and
cultural evolution (see Ousley 2000). Mixed in,
however, are a number of other themes, such as
concerns about the psychological process of ac-
culturation of cultural elements, the complexity
of origins, and the need for strict induction.

9. The BAAS contributed 480 Canadian dol-
lars (G. M. Dawson to Boas, 14 May 1897, Na-
tional Archives of Canada, Geological Survey of
Canada, 63.94).

1 0. 1 am indebted to David J. Meltzer of South-
ern Methodist University, who brought Fowke's
letter to the attention of Stanley Freed, and to
Freed, who kindly passed it on to me.

11. Born in Vienna in 1872, von Zach later
served with the Austrian consular service in East
Asia and then in the Dutch government in Indone-
sia. He published a number of Chinese linguistic
studies and translations of Chinese literature be-
fore his death in 1 942.

1 2. The Jochelsons' work on the Yukagir was
not originally to be part of the expedition, but
Boas later accepted the addition of this group to
the program (see Vakhtin, this volume).

1 3. Boas initially was ambivalent about this
latest trip of Jochelson's. He welcomed the long-
sought research, but it delayed Jochelson's
completion of his Jesup writing.

14. Costs were reduced to $2 per page, be-
low even Boas' estimate. The first part of Bogoras'
Chukchee, which came out in 1904, was the first

volume published by E.J. Brill.

1 5. Boas seems himself have recommended
the piecework idea in order to avoid conflicts with
Bumpus. See memo by Boas, 25-27 April 1906,
although this is contradicted in Boas to Osborne,
28 April 1906.

1 6. See also Boas 1 901 :357 and Boas 1 903:
77, where Boas writes that, because of Nelson
and Emmons, the principal work of the expedi-
tion had to be done in British Columbia and Wash-
ington State. Swanton did do four months of work
in 1904 in southeastern Alaska, but that was un-
der Bureau of American Ethnology sponsorship.
He published a long account for the bureau's 26th
report on Tlingit society, beliefs, and linguistic re-
lationships in 1908 and a collection of Tlingit
myths and texts the following year. The Emmons
material was published only in 1 991 , after almost
heroic editorial work by Frederica de Laguna (in-
cidentally, a Boas student).

17. Subsequent studies suggest that the
Coast Salish arise from a very ancient technology,
the Pebble Tool tradition, that inhabited the
coastal region for 9 or 10 millennia (Robinson
1976.

18. Laufer did publish some short contribu-
tions, including "Petroglyphs on the Amoor" (Laufer
1899) and "Preliminary Notes on Explorations
among the Amoor Tribes" (Laufer 1 900).

19. This was based largely on Jochelson's
comparative analysis in The Koryak (1908:354-
82), the purport of which had been published ear-
lier in Jochelson 1 906.

20. These somewhat repetitive reports are
perhaps the best summary of Boas' conclusions
in the years following the expedition.

21 . This remains a difficult and controversial
area in which new evidence undermines old mod-
els while increasing the complexity of the prob-
lems. Nevertheless, much of Boas' general con-
clusion remains plausible.

22. The term "Americanoid" was used in this
connection by at least 1904. Stephen Ousley
[Ousley 2000—ed.] has pointed to its earlier, but
disparaging, use by Daniel Brinton.

23. Jochelson, for example, did not include
Nelson's Alaska Eskimo myths in his evalua-
tion because "a large part of the episodes of the
latter cannot be considered as genuine Eskimo

DOUGLAS COLE

elements" and would only "have caused confu-
sion." Yet the Eskimo influence on Koryak culture-
myths, religious rites, and material culture-
pointed to a direct intercourse between Koryak
and Eskimo at some period. When, and under what
circumstances could only remain an open ques-
tion CJochelson 1908:359). See Chowning 1962.

24. Roland Dixon was a Harvard student. He
made a brief trip to the West Coast for the Jesup
Expedition but never went to Siberia. His disser-
tation on the Maidu was supervised by Boas. He
received his Ph.D. degree in 1900, after which he
began a long career at Harvard.

25. Obviously, Boas refers here to Berthold
Laufer, with whom he maintained an extensive
correspondence.

References

Entries marked by an asterisk were added by the editor.
Beattie, Owen B.

1 985 A Note on Early Cranial Studies from the Gulf of
Georgia Region: Long-Heads, Broad-Heads, and the
Myth of Migration. BC Studies 66 (summer):28-36.

Berman, Judith

1 991 The Seals' Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation of
Boas' Kwak'wala Texts. Ph.D. diss.. University of Penn-
sylvania, Department of Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Boas, Franz

1 883 Uber die ehemalige Verbreitung der Eskimos in
arktisch-amerikanischen Archipel. Zeitschrift der
Cesellschaft fur die Erdkunde zu Berlin 1 8(2): 1 1 8-
36.

1888 The Eskimo. Transactions of the Royal Society

of Canada for 1887, 5. Pp. 25-39.
1 891 Dissemination of Tales among the Natives of

North America. Journal of American Folk-Lore 4:1 3-

20. Reprinted in Boas 1 940.
1 895a Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifi-

schen KUste Amerikas. Sonder-Abdruck aus den

Verhandlungen der Berliner Cesellschaft fiir

Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1891

bis 1895. Berlin: A. Asher&Co. Reprint: Bonn: Holos

Verlag, 1992.
1895b Zur Ethnologie von British-Columbien. In

Verhandlungen der Cesellschaft fur die Erdkunde zu

Berlin 22 (4 May).
1896a The Growth of Indian Mythologies: A Study

Based upon the Growth of the Mythologies of the

North Pacific Coast. Journal of American Folk-Lore

9:1-11. Reprinted in Boas 1940.
1 896b The Limitations of the Comparative Method of

Anthropology. Science, n.s. 4:901-8. Reprinted in

Boas 1940.

1 897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societies
of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Observa-
tions and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt. Re-
port of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Pp. 31 1-
738. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1 898a Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern Brit-
ish Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol.
1 , pt. 1 , pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Mu-
seum of Natural History, 2. New York..

1 898b The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 2, pp. 25-
1 27. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, 2. New York.

1 901 Die Jesup Nordpazifische Expedition. In Verhand-
lungen der Cesellschaft fijr die Erdkunde zu Berlin
28. Pp. 356-9.

1902 Some Problems in North American Archaeol-
ogy. American Journal of Archaeology, Second Se-
ries, 6:1-6. Reprinted in Boas 1 940.

1 903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American
Museum Journal 3(5): 73-1 1 9.

1 904 The Folk-Lore of the E.sk\rr\o. Journal of American
Folk Lore 1 7(64): 1 -1 3. Reprinted in Boas 1 940.

1 908 Die Nordpazifische Jesup-Expedition. Interna-
tionale Monatschrift fur Wissenschaft, Kunst und
Technik 2(41): 1291 -306.

1 91 Oa Ethnological Problems in Caudiddi. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute ofCreat Britain and
Ireland 40:S29-39. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1910b Die Resultate der Jesup-Expedition. In Inter-
nationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress, 16. Tagung, Wien
1908. Erster Hdlfte. Pp. 3-1 8. Vienna and Leipzig: A.
Hartleben's Verlag.

1912 History of the American Race. Annals of The
New York Academy of Sciences 21:1 77-83. Re-
printed in Boas 1 940.

1 936 History and Science in Anthropology: A Reply.
American Anthropologist 38(1 ):1 37-41 . Reprinted
in Boas 1 940.

1940 Race, Language and Culture. New York:
Macmillan. Reprint: Free Press, 1966.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1 902 The Folklore of Northeastern Asia, as Compared
with That of Northwestern America. American An-
thropologist 4(4): 5 77-683.

1 904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the American
Museumof Natural History, 1 1 . Leiden: E.J. Brill; New
York: G. E. Stechert.

Cannizzo, Jeanne

1 983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-
ture. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-
ogy 20(l):44-58.

Carlson, Roy L.

1990 Cultural Antecedents (pp. 60-9); History of

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

Research in Archeology (pp. 107-1 5). In Handbook
of North American Indians, vol. 7. Northwest Coast.
Wayne Suttles, ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian In-
stitution.
Carneiro, Robert L.

1973 Classic Evolution. In Main Currents in Cultural
Anthropology. Raoul and Freda Naroll, eds. Pp. 57-
122. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chowning, Ann

1962 Raven Myths in Northwestern North America
and Northeastern Asia. Arctic Anthropology 1 :l-5.
Cole, Douglas

''1 985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest
Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.

*1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.
Cole, Douglas, and Ira Chaikin
1 990 An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.
Drucker, Philip

1955 Sources of Northwest Coast Culture. In New
Interpretations of Aboriginal American Culture His-
tory. Pp. 59-81. Washington, DC: Anthropological
Society of Washington.

Farrand, Livingston

1900 Traditions of the Chilcotin Indians. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt. 1 , pp. 1 -54. Franz
Boas, ed. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-
ral History, 4. New York.
Farrand, Livingston, and W. S. Kahnweiler
1 902 Traditions of the Quinault Indians. The Jesup North
Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt. 3, pp. 77-132. Franz
Boas, ed. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-
ral History, 4. New York.
Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell
1 988 Crossroads of Continents: Beringian Oecumene.
In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and
Alaska. William Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp.
9-1 6. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Fladmark, Knut R.

1986 British Columbia Prehistory. Ottawa: National

Museum of Man.
Fowke, Gerard

1899 Archaeological Investigations on the Amoor

River. Sc/e/ice 9(224):539-41 .
Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila
Williamson

1 988b Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-
aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902).
American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

Jacknis, Ira

1 991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. In
Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.
Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Pp. 1 77-224. Seattle: University
of Washington Press; New York: American Museum
of Natural History.

Jesup, Morris K.

1 897 Annual Report of the President . . . for the Year
1896. New York: American Museum of Natural His-
tory.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1 906 Uber asiatische und amerikanische Elemente in
den Mythen der Koriaken. In Internationaler
Amerikanisten-Kongress, 14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904.
Erste Hdlfte. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer. First published
in 1904 in Russian, Zemlevedenie 1 1(3):33-41.

1 908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,
vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Museum
of Natural History, 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E.
Stechert.

1925 Archeological Investigations in the Aleutian Is-
lands. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication,
367. Washington, DC.

1 926 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pt. 3. Memoirs
of the American Museum of Natural History, 1 3.
Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

1928 Peoples of Asiatic Russia. New York: American

Museum of Natural History.
Jonaitis, Aldona

1 988 From the Land of the Totem Poles. The North-
west Caost Indian Art Collection at the American
Museum of Natural History. New York: American Mu-
seum of Natural History; Seattle: University of Wash-
ington Press.

Kendall, Laurel

1988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads of
Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William
W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 1 04. Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Krause, Aurel

1 885 Die Tlinkit-lndianer: Ergebnisse einer Reise nach
der Nord-westkQste von Amerika und der
Beringstrasse. Ausgefuhrt im Auftrage der Bremer
Ceographischen Cesellschaft in der Jahren 1880-
1 88 1 durch die Doctoren Arthur und Aurel Krause /
geschildert von Dr. Aurel Krause. Jena: Hermann
Costenoble.

Krupnik, Igor

1996 The "Bogoras Enigma": Bounds of Cultures and
Formats of Anthropologists. In Grasping the Chang-
ing World: Anthropological Concepts in the

DOUGLAS COLE

Postmodern Era. Vaclav Hubinger, ed. Pp. 35-52.
London: Routledge.
Laufer, Berthold

1 899 Petroglyphs on the Amoor. American Anthro-
pologist, n.s. 1 (October);746-50.

1900 Preliminary Notes on Explorations among the
AmoorJribes. American Anthropologist, n.s. 2(2):297-
338.

Leopold, Joan

1 980 Culture in Comparative and Evolutionary Per-
spective: E. B. Tylor and the Making of Primitive Cul-
ture. Berlin: Dieter Reimer.

Murdoch, John

1 892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedi-
tion. 9th Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology for the Years 1887-1888. Washington DC:
Government Printing Office.

Nelson, Edward W.

1 899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Annual Report
of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1 896-1 897),
18, pt. /.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Ohio Archeological and Historical Society

1929 Gerard Fowke. Ohio Archeological and Histori-
cal Quarterly^iBi.IOO-} 8. Reprint: Pamphlets in Ameri-
can History, B 758 (Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming Corp.
of America, 1979). Microfiche.

Putnam, Frederic W.

1 902 Synopsis of Peabody and American Museum of
Natural History Anthropology Departments. In Inter-
national Congress of Americanists, 1 3th Session, Held
in New York in 1902. P. xliii. Easton, PA: Eschenbach.

Robinson, Ellen W.

1 976 Harlan I. Smith, Boas, and the Salish: Unweaving
Archeological Hypotheses. Northwest Anthropologi-
cal Research Notes 1 0(2): 1 85-96.

Rohner, Ronald P., ed.

1 969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and
Diaries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coast
from 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Shternberg, Leo

1906 Bemerkungen uber Beziehungen zwischen der
Morphologie der giljakischen und amerikanischen
Sprachen. In Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress,
14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erste Halfte. Pp. 137-
40. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

Smith, Harlan Ingersoll

1 907 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget
Sound. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt.
6, pp. 301 -41 . Memoirs of the American Museum of
Natural History, 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E.
Stechert.

Stocking, George W, Jr.

1987 Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free

Press.
Teit, James A.

1 898 Traditions of the Thompson River Indians of
British Columbia. Memoirs of the American Folk-Lore
Society, 6.

1 900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 4, pp. 1 63-
392. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, 2. New York.

Wickwire, Wendy

1 993 Women in Ethnography: The Research of James
A. Teit. Ethnohistory 40i4):S39-62.

•*2000 "The Quite Impossible Task": Douglas Cole and
the Ecumenical Challenge of British Columbia's Cul-
tural History. BC Studies. The British Columbian Quar-
terly ]2S-6 (spring-summer):5-32.

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

["ranz j^oas and tKe ^Kaping of the Jesup
Expedition Siberian j^esearch, 1 55^^-1 ^OO

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

To ensure the productivity of their research, I am con-
vinced that American scholars who nowadays ven-
ture on research projects in Siberia must study the his-
tory of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition QNPE), 1 897-
1902, as a prerequisite. Likewise, Russian academics
considering participation in joint projects supported
by American grants should familiarize themselves with
the historical background of the JNPE. All— especially
those of us participating in the Jesup 2 project (see
Fitzhugh and Krupnik 1 994)— are well advised to study
the achievements, challenges, mistakes, and limitations
of their predecessors as they arranged international
cooperation 100 years ago. The astonishing similarity
between political, social, and scholarly paradigms then
and now makes this task not only necessary but also
emotionally powerful.

Although this alone would justify interest in the
history of the JNPE, there is another reason for such
interest. Extensive American literature on the subject
focuses, quite understandably, on the "American" side
of the JNPE— on its influence in shaping American an-
thropology and on its American participants. The ex-
pedition, however, had two sides, and its "Russian"
side is of no less importance to the development of
Russian anthropology.

It is a fact that the JNPE played an important role in
shaping Russian scholarship, especially the develop-
ment of Russian (and, later, Soviet) research in social
anthropology, ethnography, and linguistics of the
Siberian Native peoples. A miraculous interplay of
favorable circumstances— for the development of

anthropology— led to the emergence of a "school" that
proved to be extremely productive and fruitful. To
some extent, to study the roots of Russian northern
research after 1 897 is to study the history of the JNPE.
In an excellent review paper by Freed et al. (1 988), the
description of preparations for the Jesup Expedition
and the obstacles it had to overcome takes about
two pages. Of these, the authors have given the Sibe-
rian side two lines: "In Siberia, the principal problems
were politics, climate, terrain, logistics, miserable living
conditions, and the enormous distances . . ." (Freed et
al. 1 988:9). Was there, then, anything that was not— is
not— a problem in Siberia?

This paper tries to fill in at least the broadest "Rus-
sian gaps" in the early history of the JNPE, largely on the
basis of archival resources in the United States and
Russia. More specifically, I relied on vast collections of
correspondence between the members and organiz-
ers of the expedition and the dozens of other people
who were in one way or another involved in this monu-
mental enterprise.'

Developing The Project, 1895-1897

There is a well-known, though certainly somewhat un-
fortunate, tradition of naming buildings, halls, universi-
ties, book series, and projects not after those who
built, wrote, or invented them but after those who
provided the funding. This is understandable: good
architects, writers, and scholars will, with some luck,
be remembered, but for the rich, this may be their only
opportunity.

The role of Morris K. Jesup in establishing the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is, of course,
fundamental. Similarly, without his support the North
Pacific Expedition would hardly have been possible.
Nevertheless, the Boas North Pacific Expedition might
be a better name: the amount of time, talent, and en-
ergy that Boas invested in this project was incredible.

Franz Boas' Employment at the AMNH
Franz Boas was born in 1 858 in Minden, Westphalia.
He chose a university career in natural sciences and
mathematics, and from 1877 to 1881 he studied in
Heidelberg, Bonn, and Kiel. After a year of military ser-
vice. Boas spent some time in Berlin studying the "re-
action of the human mind to [the] natural environment."
In the summer of 1 883 he went to Baffin Island and
spent more than a year with the Inuit. After several
more years in Berlin at the Ethnographic Museum (Mu-
seum fur Volkerkunde) and more fieldwork (on the West
Coast of North America, in 1 887), he moved to the
United States and took a position at Clark University.
After resigning from Clark in 1 892, Boas spent the next
two years in Chicago, first as chief assistant to Frederic
W. Putnam, a leading anthropologist at Harvard whom
Boas helped to organize anthropological exhibits at
the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, and later
as curator of anthropology at the Field Museum. Boas'
resignation from the Field Museum in 1894 was fol-
lowed by a year of unemployment (Stocking 1 973).

Putnam, who was hired as part-time curator, De-
partment of Anthropology at the AMNH in New York,
began working on a plan to invite Boas to the depart-
ment. As early as December 1 894, he wrote to Jesup:

Complying with your request that I put in
writing the substance of our conversation of
yesterday ... I respectfully make the follow-
ing suggestions: First,— that I be authorized
to propose to Dr. Franz Boas that he shall so
arrange his plans as to be able to accept a
position in the department as early as
possible next Fall. . ." [Putnam to Jesup,
December 8, 1894, AMNH-DA].

Putnam used every meeting with Jesup to persuade

him that they needed Boas in New York. This persis-
tence eventually bore fruit. In March 1 894, AMNH Sec-
retary John H. Winser had informed Boas that there
was no position for a curator of anthropology at the
museum (Winser to Boas, 3 March 1 894, AMNH-DA).
Five months later, however, the likelihood of a posi-
tion already appeared to have increased. Putnam en-
couraged Boas, writing that he hoped that the cloudy
period of Boas' life was over and there was sunny
weather ahead (Putnam to Boas, 3 August 1 894, APS-
NYPL; see also Dexter 1 976).

During this time, Boas was not simply waiting pas-
sively for other people to decide his destiny. In May
1 895 he wrote to the U.S. National Museum in Wash-
ington [later renamed the Smithsonian Institution's
National Museum of Natural History, NMNH— ed], of-
fering to enlarge, describe, and sort out its American
Indian collections in order "to make a systematic ex-
hibit covering the whole North Pacific coast" (Boas to
NMNH, 27 May 1 895, APS-NYPL). In this letter, the con-
cept of the North Pacific Coast included only the four
American Indian groups from the Yakutat [Northern
Tlingit] to the Salish.

During the summer of 1895 Boas was in Europe
(Germany, England, and France). While there, he received
an offer from J. W. Powell for a permanent position in
Washington with the Bureau of American Ethnology
(BAE). Simultaneously, he received a letter from Putnam:

I wrote to President Low [of Columbia
University] about getting you for Columbia
College, after a consultation with Mr. Jesup.
Mr. Jesup thought if we could manage to
keep you in New York through the winter
somehow or other, that next year would
open better for us in many ways, and
between Columbia College and the Museum
we could be pretty sure of giving you a
satisfactory position. (Putnam to Boas, 19
June 1895, APS-NYPL)

Putnam asked Boas to postpone the decision
until things clarified in New York. With Boas, Farrand,
and Ripley, the AMNH would have had an "unbeat-
able anthropological team" (Freed et al. 1988:9).
They could establish there, Putnam wrote, "a great

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

anthropological institution," whereas in Washington, he
argued. Boas would not be so free in his actions.

Thus, by the summer of 1 895 Boas had two offers,
one from the AMNH and one from the BAE. He was
uncertain which to choose. The position at the AMNH
looked more attractive, but the one with the BAE was
more secure and could be taken right away.

The North Pacific Expedition Idea Emerges
Before 1 895, Boas never discussed field research in
Asia or in Siberia in his letters. He wrote several letters
describing his plans for future work in British Columbia
and along the Northwest Coast (e.g., letter to G. M.
Dawson, 1 5 May 1 894, APS-NYPL), but he never spoke
about expanding beyond the Bering Strait, nor is any
mention of Siberia to be found in his early correspon-
dence with Putnam or Jesup.

It was probably during his trip to Europe in the
summer of 1 895 that the idea of the North Pacific Ex-
pedition—a comparative study of the American and
Siberian Native people— struck Boas' mind. This idea
went beyond anything Boas had envisioned before.
Whether he was inspired by something he had read or
heard in Europe or by the forced idleness of the seven-
day transatlantic trip back to New York, Boas obvi-
ously landed on American soil with an idea that was
to become the nucleus of the North Pacific Expedition.

Boas had acquired unique experience on the North-
west Coast, particularly in British Columbia, and he was
well equipped to address the problem of contacts
between the Old and the New Worlds.

The types of man which we find on the North
Pacific coast of America, while distinctly
American, shows a great affinity to North
Asiatic forms; and the question arises,
whether this affinity is due to mixture, to
migration, or to gradual differentiation. (Boas
1898b:2)

This was put into an even broader and more challeng-
ing context:

We have come to understand that before we
can build up the theory of the growth of all
human culture, we must know the growth of

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

cultures that we find here and there among
the most primitive tribes of the Arctic, of the
deserts of Australia, and of the impenetrable
forests of South America; and the progress of
the civilization of antiquity and of our own
times. We must, so far as we can, reconstruct
the actual history of mankind, before we can
hope to discover the laws underlying that
theory. (Boas 1898b:2)

Soon after coming to New York (or perhaps while
still in Europe), Boas must have written to Leonhard
Stejneger, an old friend in Washington who had visited
the Russian Far East, to ask for advice. In November
1895, Stejneger answered; another letter from him
followed in December. Inviting Boas to visit Washing-
ton, Stejneger wrote:

We can then better talk of the various things
you write about. As a matter of fact, without
knowing how it is proposed to travel "in the
Amur region and further North" [evidently a
quotation from Boas' letter], I can have no
idea as to costs ... my experience has been
in such a different quarter of that part of the
world that they would be of but little use. I
have today written, however, to a friend in
San Francisco . . . who could provide neces-
sary information. (Stejneger to Boas, 26
November 1895, APS-NYPL)

A month later, Stejneger described the means of
transportation from Vladivostok to Petropavlovsk and
to small towns such as Cizhiga, Okhotsk, and Tigil along
the Sea of Okhotsk. This information was obviously
based on the letter from the "friend in San Francisco"
he had mentioned earlier (Stejneger to Boas, 21 De-
cember 1 895, APS-NYPL).

In the meantime. Boas accepted the AMNH posi-
tion, on January 3, 1 896. Along with his everyday ac-
tivities at the museum, he began to dig trenches around
Jesup. Since Putnam, as head of the Department of
Anthropology, was his superior, there was no way for
Boas to leave him out of the project. In fact, it is un-
likely that he had such intentions; Putnam was a friend,
and the two thought largely along the same lines,
whether the museum structure or anthropological field-
work was at issue. Putnam had demonstrated this
clearly in his memorandum to Jesup (see Annual

7 3

Report on the Department of Anthropology for 1894;
Putnam to Jesup, 1 1 August 1 894, AMNH-DA).

I believe that the original idea for the North Pacific
expedition was developed by Boas and later promoted
by Putnam. The two, however, worked closely together.
Putnam was the boss, and Boas naturally did not have
a chance of persuading Jesup to pay for the expedi-
tion without Putnam's support, authority, and name.
Although an original letter addressed to Jesup describ-
ing the plan of the North Pacific Expedition was not
discovered by myself nor other researchers (Brown
1910; Dexter 1976; Freed et al. 1988:9; Hinsley and
Holm 1 976; Kennedy 1 969), there are some indica-
tions that such a crucial letter was written.^ For ex-
ample, Putnam wrote to Augustus Lowell:

. . . you have probably noticed in a newspa-
per . . . some account of the Expedition to
the North Pacific which is to be carried on
under my direction for the American Museum
of Natural History in New York. Mr. Jesup,
who is the President of Board of Trustees of
that Museum, will personally pay all the ex-
penses of the expedition. Dr. Franz Boas . . .
will take charge of a party to make explora-
tions on Vancouver Island this summer. ... In
order that you may understand the scope of
the above-mentioned expedition ... I
enclose a copy of my letter to Mr. Jesup on
this subject. (Putnam to Lowell, 20 March
1897, APS-NYPL) [See also Appendix A to
Cole, this volume— ed.].

Note the phrases "under my direction," "my letter",
they clearly indicate that the letter was signed (or per-
haps cosigned) by Putnam. In any case, the fact that
the North Pacific Expedition was organized and fi-
nanced "at the suggestion of Boas and F. Ward Putnam"
(Rohner 1969:199) can be regarded as proved.

One can get a clear idea of the contents of this
letter from another letter written by Boas to Jesup in
November 1898 in which he tries to "restate the ob-
jects of the expedition, the original plans, and the
changes that seem desirable at the present time." Boas
formulates the two goals of the expedition as follows:

1 . Is there a racial affinity between the
Asiatic race and the American race, which

will compel us to assume a common origin
of both? 2. Can we prove by archaeological
and ethnological investigation the existence
of historical contact between the tribes of
the two continents? (Boas to Jesup, 2 No-
vember 1898, AMNH-DA)

He then explains at length the information that led him
to expect a positive answer to these two questions.

The Expedition Takes Shape
For several months, the idea was discussed in many
meetings. Jesup soon became an ardent supporter of
the proposal and tried to raise money for it. When it
seemed that nobody was willing to sponsor the project,
Jesup made a bold decision to cover the expenses out
of his private funds. John Winser wrote to Putnam in
February 1897:

Mr. Jesup has about concluded to take up
the cost of the Bering Sea explorations. He . .
. would like you to have the matter in mind
and be prepared to give your views on his
return. Entering into this work is however
entirely dependent upon the discovery of the
right man for the work . . . (Winser to Putnam,
12 February 1897, AMNH-L)

In March 1897, the first public announcement of
the expedition appeared in the form of an anonymous
article in Science (Proposed Explorations ... 1 897:455-
7) [presumably written by Boas]. It was followed by
numerous articles in the New York Times and other
national and local papers. The papers flashed tempt-
ing headings:

Round the World for Science. Morris K. Jesup
to Send an Expedition for the Museum of
Natural History to Search America First.
Anthropologists Will Gather Evidence as to
First Men on This Continent, Will Cross to
Asia Then . . .

When the expedition was announced, dozens (per-
haps hundreds) of letters poured into the AMNH. All
kinds of people begged to be allowed to take part-
young and old, adventurers and doctors, journalists
and students, and even a shorthand expert. (The last-
named offered, rather boldly, to write 1 50-200

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

syllables per minute in any language, including those
not previously known to exist.) Most of the letters,
which typically began, "it has always been my dream,"
were written in 1 897; all or most were answered nega-
tively: "At present we have completed the research
parties; your letter will be filed for the future". A letter
from a W. F. Brock is worth quoting as an example;

For several years I have devoted all of the
time that I could spare from my profession in
gathering together Indian history and leg-
ends. ... As a newspaper correspondent, I
have traveled over ALL of Oregon, Washing-
ton and Idaho. I have visited many parts of
Montana, British Columbia, Alberta and
Assinaboia. ... I was with the Piute Indians of
Nevada for four months. ... I lived among
the Yakimans. ... I converse freely in the
Chinook Jargon. ... I can handle a train of
packed horses and manage canoe with a
skill which has been acquired by a life
residence in a new country. ... I should like
to work under you or in one of your divi-
sions, in any capacity in which I can be the
most useful. (Brock to Jesup, n.d. 1 897,
AMNH-DA)

In a letter to Jesup complaining, hypocritically, that
he was besieged by reporters eager to learn details
about the expedition, Putnam indicated that, on the
whole, "[i]t again shows the great interest which the
people take in everything anthropological and espe-
cially in all research relating to the ethnology of America"
(Putnam to Jesup, 16 March 1897, AMNH-DA).

Now that the expedition had the necessary fund-
ing and wide publicity. Boas realized, as Winser had
put it, that beginning the JNPE project in earnest was
"entirely dependent upon the discovery of the right
man for the work." Boas began to look for the man.

Looking for the Man: Von Zach and Baily
Through his German and American contacts. Boas soon
came across two names. The first person was a V.
Baily, recommended by Stejneger. Very little is known
about him except that he "has had the intention for
some time to go to Eastern Siberia collecting" (Stejneger
to Boas, 27 April 1 897, APS-NYPL).

The otherwas a young German scientist from Leiden,
Edwin von Zach, who was recommended by Professor
Gustav Schlegel. Boas' letter to von Zach in April 1 897
is probably the earliest source available from which
one can judge how Boas had envisioned the proposed
expedition before it actually began:

From what Dr. Schlegel writes me, I suppose
that you will be well prepared to undertake
linguistic and anthropological work, both of
which will be of great importance for the
undertaking; but ... it is also necessary to
pay particular attention to the collection of
ethnological and anthropological material. I
desire to have particularly good collection of
crania, when such can be obtained, and of all
the objects used in the daily life and religious
life of the people. Besides these, I lay particu-
lar stress upon the collection of good
linguistic data, of collection of myths and
other traditions in the original language, of
songs, etc., and furthermore I want extensive
service of measurements of the people; that
is to say, I want to cover the whole field of
ethnological, anthropological, and linguistic
research as fully as possible. . . . You will
understand that this letter is not a definite
and final proposition on my part, but this
letter is written in order to inform you of our
proposed work. (Boas to von Zach, April
1897, AMNH-DA)

Von Zach's answer was prompt and enthusiastic:

I am much obliged to you for your flattering
proposition . . ., and I am perfectly satisfied
with the conditions. . . . Although I am not a
man of means, a scientific investigation of
this kind is not a question of making money;
but I am doubtful if I am able to adequately
carry out the proposed work. I have studied
medicine and the Chinese language and
literature, but I have not paid much attention
to the isolated languages of eastern Siberia. .
. . All I can claim, therefore, as special
acquirements, is a general knowledge of the
subject and a deep interest in every thing
pertaining to the same. If you should finally
decide to engage me, I should propose to
discontinue my special work on Chinese
language and literature, in order to prepare,
so far as feasible, for the proposed expedi-
tion. I should study in detail the linguistic and
ethnographical literature of Siberia, and visit
the collections at Berlin, London, and St.
Petersburg. I should also take up with greater
vigor my practical studies of the English and
Russian languages. Finally I beg to ask you

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

to inform me if the worl< that I would be
expected to do is confined to the Kot7ak
and Youkageer, or if you intend to take up
other tribes of eastern Siberia as well, (von
Zach to Boas, 24 April 1897, AMNH-DA)

Boas was obviously impressed by the young man's
response. On May 7, 1 897, he wrote to both Gustav
Schlegel and Morris Jesup stating that the recommended
candidate was "excellent." "I do not believe from what
I hear," he added, "that we can find a better man than
him for the work north of the Okhotsk Sea, and I would
suggest that he be engaged for doing this work"
(AMNH-DA).

By mid-May, the proposed expedition began to
take shape, as Boas wrote to Jesup:

It will be possible to send two parties to
Asia next spring. One of these would go to
Arctic Siberia . . . the other party would go
to the Amoor River. It would be best for
both parties to stay away for a whole year. I
have engaged Prof. Von Zach to go to Arctic
Siberia, and another gentleman [Boas is
probably referring here to Laufer— N.V.] who
seems to be very well prepared for the work
has been recommended to me. (Boas to
Jesup, 16 May 1897, APS-NYPL)

On May 1 9, 1 897, shortly before leaving on the
field trip to Victoria, British Columbia, Boas sent an of-
ficial letter to von Zach and offered him a position on
the expedition team, with the task of studying the
Chukchi, the Koryak, and the Yukagir tribes of Siberia.
For this, he suggested a salary of $500 per year, with
all expenses in the field to be covered by the AMNH
(Boas to von Zach, 19 May 1897, AMNH-DA).

At the same time, steps were taken to secure the
cooperation of the Russian government. On March 1 5,
Morris Jesup signed a formal letter to Russia's Envoy
Extraordinary to the United States, E. Kotzebue. In de-
scribing briefly the aim of the expedition, he expressed
hope that "the Imperial Russian Government will give
us authority to carry on explorations in its territory"
Oesup to Kotzebue, 1 5 March 1 897, AMNH-DA).

Relations with Russian government authorities de-
veloped slowly but steadily. On September 1 9, Dr. E.
O. Hovey, a geologist employed by the AMNH who

had taken part in the International Geological Con-
gress in St. Petersburg, submitted to Jesup a report on
his consultations with Russian officials (conducted at
Jesup's request) about the possibility of sending an
expedition to Siberia. The Russian government, regard-
ing the whole proposition quite favorably, requested
a list of the people who were to take part in the expe-
dition, with their titles and positions, "without which
nothing could be done." No foreign expedition would
be allowed to enter Siberia unless its personnel was
known and approved in advance. Dr. Hovey also talked
to General Dubrovin, of the Imperial Russian Academy
of Sciences (RAS), and he met with Dr. Amstant, the
assistant to the permanent secretary of the RAS, Pro-
fessor Vasily V. Radloff. (Radloff himself was away on
vacation.) In addition, Hovey called on Grand Duke
Constantine, president of the RAS, leaving with his sec-
retary a letter explaining the plan for the Siberian expe-
dition. His conclusion was "that the Russians are or will
be thoroughly interested in the investigations in north-
eastern Siberia and that the government will authorize
and assist the expedition" (Hovey to Jesup, 19 Sep-
tember 1897, AMNH-DA).

Change of Plans: Jochelson Appears
Everything seemed in order, but later that year some-
thing must have happened with von Zach. There are
no more letters to or from him in Boas' correspon-
dence collection, and the leadership of the JNPE field-
work in northeastern Siberia was again uncertain. The
sequence of the Siberian work suddenly changed; the
Amur River area would now first be investigated by
Berthold Laufer (on Laufer, see Kendall 1 988). On Janu-
ary 4, 1 898, Boas wrote to Radloff:

For the Spring of this year we have planned
an expedition to the Lower Amoor [Amur]
River. We have requested and have been
granted authority from the Imperial Russian
Government to conduct our investigations in
that region, and I have selected Dr. Berthold
Laufer of Cologne, who has studied Asiatic
languages in Berlin and Leipzig, to study the
language of the Gilyak; he will be accompanied

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

by Mr. Gerard Fowke. ... I hope to extend
our work in 1 899 towards the more northern
regions, but I have not yet found a man well
fitted for this work. ... I am desirous of
finding a young man who will spend a year
or two in Northeastern Siberia, with a view
to studying the customs, manners, languages
and physical characteristics of that district.
Could you recommend to me a young man
fitted to undertake this work? (Boas to
Radloff, 4 January 1898, AMNH-DA)

Radloff promptly responded on February 23, 1898:^

I have found a gentleman willing to take part
in your expedition, a Mr. Jochelson, who has
just returned from an expedition to the
Yukagirs, and among whom he has lived for
two and a half years. ... He consents to take
part in the expedition for one year only, and
only to the Yukagirs. For the expedition to
the Chukchee he recommends a friend of his,
a Mr. Bogoraz, who has lived two years
among them and knows their language. ... It
is my opinion that you would do well to
secure the services of these two gentlemen,
since they are both well acquainted with the
countries to which they will have to go, and
have already made special studies of the
languages as well as the habits and customs
of the peoples. . . . Unfortunately I have not
yet been able to receive the consent of the
latter gentleman, since he is living in Eastern
Siberia, but I have written to him and hope
to have his answer in about two months.
(Radloff to Boas, 23 February 1898, AMNH-DA)

Radloff also rendered to Boas the conditions upon
which Jochelson consented to undertake the work. All
travel expenses should be paid, as well as a sufficient
salary starting on the date Jochelson left St. Petersburg
and continuing until he had fully prepared his field
materials for publication. Jochelson was willing to give
Boas full benefit of all the materials he had already
gathered, as well as those yet to be collected, but he
reserved the right to publish in Russian as much of
these findings as he wished.

This is the first time the names of Waldemar
(Vladimir) Jochelson and Waldemar (Vladimir, also called
Nathan) Bogoras (or Bogoraz) appear in the correspon-
dence." A question that is often asked— why Radloff
did not mention the third potential participant, Leo
Shternberg— has, in my opinion, an obvious answer.

The original letter from Boas indicated that he already
had a person for the study of the Cilyak [Nivkh] people
in the Amur River area. Boas was asking for help in
identifying one man to do research in northeastern Si-
beria for two years. Radloff instead suggested two
men, each for one year. For Shternberg, there Just was
no vacancy at the time (see also Kan, this volume).

Radloff also wrote tojesup informing him that "the
Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg has consented
to assist in every possible way the scientific expedi-
tion." In addition, he requested official information: the
names of all persons who were to take part in the
expedition, when they expected to arrive in Siberia
and the duration of their stay, and what parts of Sibe-
ria they intended to visit. This information, he explained,
was necessary for a letter of recommendation to the
governor-general of Eastern Siberia, so that each mem-
ber of the expedition could be supplied with an open
letter from the minister of the interior to all the admin-
istrative powers of that part of the empire (Radloff to
Jesup, 23 February 1898, AMNH-DA).

However, the matter of acquiring permission from
the Russian government did not proceed smoothly.
On April 4, the U.S. Embassy in St. Petersburg informed
Jesup that Laufer would not be able to get a Russian
visa to conduct fieldwork in Siberia. The visa was re-
fused by none other than Minister of the Interior Ivan
Coremykin, who was perfectly familiar with the whole
project and was much interested in the matter.
Coremykin's position was that this would be against
Russian law: Laufer, as a German Jew, was prohibited
from entering Siberia [according to the Russian anti-
Jewish regulations— ed.] (U.S. Embassy tojesup, 4 April
1898, AMNH-DA)."-

Boas wrote to a contact in Germany, a Mr.
Grundwedel, to discuss the possibility of influencing
the Russian government. The answer was pessimistic:

. . . the Russian government seeks totally to
thwart all scientific investigations by non-
Russian scholars on Russian territory. ... I see
no other way but that the expedition make
itself directly available to the Russian Academy.

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

Of course the Imperial Russian Academy
would have first rights to both the collec-
tions as well as any literary output. For
science it would be all the same, of course,
but not for you. (Grundwedel to Boas, 2 May
1898, AMNH-DA)

The matter was settled only after Radioff addressed
Grand Duke Constantine, titular president of the RAS,
who appealed to no less than his nephew. Tsar
Nicholas II.

By June 1 898, everything was more or less ready.
In July 1 898 Berthold Laufer and Gerard Fowke began
their work among the Nivkh [Gilyak] and Ulch [Tungus]
people of the Amur River region, as well as among the
Ainu of Sakhalin Island. They remained in the field until
March 1899 (Freed et al. 1988:13-14; Kendall 1988;
Segel n.d.). By that time, the other half of the Siberian
JNPE expedition had also been arranged.

The JNPE Siberian Team: Two Populist
Revolutionaries

It is now time to explain who those two "Russian
gentlemen," Vladimir Jochelson and Vladimir Bogoras,
were. To use Radioff s wording, they "had Just returned
from an expedition" to Eastern Siberia and were rec-
ommended by the RAS to Boas on the strength of
their two-year experience of fieldwork in the area, their
good command of Native languages, and their deep
knowledge of the "habits and customs of the people."
In fact, the two people in question were dissidents.

Vladimir Jochelson was born in 1 855 and had joined
the revolutionary movement, the People's Freedom
party, at a rather young age.^ Between 1 875 and 1 881 ,
he was an underground party activist. In 1 881 he emi-
grated to Switzerland, where he worked at the party
printing house and studied social sciences and eco-
nomics at the University of Bern. In 1 885 he returned
to Russia and was immediately arrested and impris-
oned. He spent 1885-87 in solitary confinement, and
in 1 887 he was exiled to Eastern Siberia for 10 years
of ssylka (political exile). ^ While in Siberia, he became
interested in the Yukagir, a small Native nation living in

the area of his exile. He later took part in the Sibiryakov
Expedition (1 894-98) organized by the Russian Geo-
graphical Society [and sponsored by Russian gold-min-
ing tycoon Alexandr Sibiryakov ed.]. Jochelson re-
turned to European Russia in 1 898 and immediately
went to Switzerland, where he enrolled at the univer-
sity in order to finish his education (RAS-J).

Vladimir Bogoras was born in 1865 in the small
town of Ovruch in Volyn Province, western Ukraine. In
1 880, at the age of 1 5, he entered St. Petersburg Uni-
versity. He took courses in mathematics but later
switched to law. Like Jochelson, Bogoras was a mem-
ber of the People's Freedom party. In 1 882 he was
exiled to his hometown and then, in 1 883, arrested.
After serving a short term in prison, he again became
very active in party affairs. In December 1 886 he was
arrested for the second time, sent to prison for three
years, and afterward exiled for 1 0 years to the Kolyma
Region of eastern Siberia, where he lived from 1 890
until 1 898. Around 1 894, he too became a member
of the Sibiryakov Expedition and worked on the eth-
nography of the Chukchi. He returned to St. Petersburg
in 1 899 and was employed as a fellow of the Museum
of Ethnography (Al'kor 1935:5-7; Krader 1 968:1 1 6).

A third person, Leo (Lev) Shternberg, became con-
nected with Boas and the JNPE project several years
later. Since his name will be mentioned many times
below, and since Shternberg's earlier years were so
strikingly similar to those of Bogoras and Jochelson, it
is appropriate to say a few words about him here. (A
more detailed account is found in Kan, this volume.)

Born in 1 861 in Zhitomir, Ukraine, Shternberg stud-
ied at St. Petersburg University in 1 881 , enrolling in the
Department of Natural Sciences. He soon joined the
Central Student Circle, the main branch of the People's
Freedom party among the students. There, he met
Bogoras for the first time. After being involved in large
student demonstrations and clashes with the police,
Shternberg was exiled from St. Petersburg in 1 882 and
became a law student at Novorossiysk University in
Odessa. He studied and continued his "revolutionary

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

activities" in Odessa for four years until his arrest in
1 886, when he was in the middle of his graduation
exams. After being imprisoned for three years, in 1889
he was exiled for 10 years to Sakhalin Island. He be-
came interested in the language and culture of the
Cilyak [Nivkh] people and published his first paper on
the Cilyak in 1 893. In 1 899 he returned to St. Peters-
burg (Bogoras helped him get permission to live in the
capital) and in 1901 became an ethnographer at the
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, rising to
the level of senior ethnographer several years later (Kan
1978; Ol'denburg and Samoilovich 1930:7-8).

Jochelson, Bogoras, and Shternberg: Early

Anthropological Interests

During their years in Siberia, these three members of
the People's Freedom party wrote to each other as
frequently as they were permitted, exchanging what-
ever news they had, words of support for each other,
opinions on the books they had read, and the books
themselves. The letters are full of complaints about
the unbearable conditions of life and the idleness and
boredom. This is especially true for Bogoras who, be-
ing the youngest and the most energetic of the three,
obviously suffered most from living "on the sidewalk
of the road of life," as he put it, and watching life go
past. This excerpt of a letter from Bogoras in Sredne-
Kolymsk to Shternberg in Sakhalin captures his mood:

Your warm-cold and wet-dry island is still
part of the globe, and lives and moves
together with it, if not forward, then at least
backwards. Kolymsk is a different planet,
even less connected with Earth than the
Moon, completely alien to Earth, a block of
ice cast out into space and suspended there
above the emptiness, where every accidental
spark of life freezes down and suffocates.
(20 June 1 894, RAS-B).

The reasons why the three exiles become inter-
ested in the ethnography of the Siberian Native peoples
are rather complicated. To some extent, it was a con-
tinuation of their interest in "the people"— a central

concept in the People's Freedom party ideology. An-
other reason was the immense demand for educated
people in those remote areas. The services of Jochelson,
Shternberg, and Bogoras were soon engaged by the
local administration and by the Sibiryakov Expedition
for the purposes of conducting censuses, recording
statistics, and describing the life of the people. Of
course, they were political exiles and could not be
trusted, but they were also educated people former
university students— and thus could be useful. To some
extent, the idleness and boredom of their everyday
lives impelled them to find something to do in order to
"preserve their sanity and will to live," as Kan (1 978: 1 1 )
put it. Ten years, after all, is a long time.

Initially, they might not have taken their ethno-
graphic pursuits seriously. For example, Bogoras, after
two paragraphs of the usual complaints about his
boredom and idleness, rage at being cut off from life,
and irritation, wrote in a letter to Shternberg:

I am now flirting with ethnography. I traveled
through the area, lived for seven months with
the Chukchi, goddamn them, rode on
reindeer back, went downstream on rafts-
well, this is hardly interesting to anyone but
an ethnographer. (Bogoras to Shternberg, 4
November 1895, RAS-B)

Shternberg himself, after several months of isolated
life at a distant military post (he had to share a hut
with his guards), established friendly relations with resi-
dents of a neighboring Cilyak [Nivkh] settlement. Go-
ing there almost every day, he began to learn their
language and to document their customs.

Thus it happened that almost simultaneously
Oochelson in 1898, Bogoras and Shternberg in 1899),
three men experienced in studying Siberian ethnology
and languages and willing to publish the materials they
had collected arrived in St. Petersburg. Of course, in
many ways they were quite naive about how science
was done. In 1 899, for example, Shternberg, still in
Sakhalin, wrote to Bogoras, who was already in St.
Petersburg, asking him to find "an international Cilyak
alphabet" and "a reader in comparative philology."

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

Bogoras wrote back quickly, "There is no such thing as
a Cilyak alphabet. What you have to do is copy a
couple of Cilyak texts and send them to the Academy
with detailed grammatical commentaries" (Bogoras to
Shternberg, 22 February 1 899, RAS). Shternberg mailed
his manuscript on the Cilyak language to Bogoras, who
persuaded K. Zaieman, a well-known linguist working
with the academy, to publish it (see Kan, this volume).

Obviously, Bogoras, Jochelson, and Shternberg were
using their ethnographic and linguistic materials and
the unique knowledge they had acquired in Siberia as
a means of recapturing their standing in life. In 1 899
Bogoras wrote to Shternberg that he had visited
Radloff, who promised to support Shternberg's inten-
tion to come to St. Petersburg to work on his collec-
tions, which would be donated to the Museum of
Anthropology and Ethnography (MAE). Bogoras advised
Shternberg to write to Radloff immediately that he,
Shternberg, had a certain collection from a certain land
and was willing to present it to the museum but needed
time to organize it. That would require his presence in
St. Petersburg. "Advertise yourself with reserve but in-
tensively," Bogoras wrote, not without a hint of irony
(Bogoras to Shternberg, n.d. 1 899, RAS).

They seem rather surprised themselves at how their
lives were turning out. Before their exile to Siberia, they
never dreamed of becoming ethnographers. Political
activism, journalism— these were the stuff of real life.
Bogoras somewhat sarcastically joked, "Ah, this is
what the Acheans went to conquer Troy for! So that
they could afterwards take apart Chukchee, Yukaghir,
Cilyak and other texts. Mais tu I'a voulu, George
DflAic//>7.'" (Bogoras to Shternberg, n.d. 1 899, RAS). But
another obvious undertone of Bogoras' letters of the
period was sheer pride. He was proud of himself and
his comrades because they had managed not to per-
ish, physically and mentally, during those 1 0 extremely
harsh years in Siberia. Instead, they had found some-
thing there that helped them reestablish their social
standing. These former convicts and exiles had col-
lected copious data previously unknown to scholars,

and they were publishing their works in the prestigious
proceedings of the RAS and the Imperial Ceographical
Society. The RAS had no one but the two (or even
three) of them to recommend to Boas as experienced
ethnographers with considerable knowledge of Sibe-
ria. "By God, attaboys, those old Siberian Jews!" (Bogoras
to Shternberg, 1 9 August 1 899, RAS).

Boas Employs Jochelson
In the fall of 1 898, Boas went to Berlin, where, for the
first time, he had an opportunity to meet Radloff in
person and to make the acquaintance of Jochelson,
who was still in Switzerland working on his doctoral
examinations (Boas to Jesup, 4 October 1 898, AMNH-
L). After meeting Boas and securing his own position,
Jochelson began to promote Bogoras persistently, re-
minding Boas about him in almost every letter. For
instance, he wrote:

I just received word from Yakutsk, from Mr.
Bogoraz, that he agrees to study the Chukchi
for the Museum and travel to the Bering
peninsula for that purpose. He is satisfied
with the conditions I had stated. Mr. Bogoraz
should have arrived in Irkutsk by now, and in
November we hope to meet in Russia . . .
(Jochelson to Boas, 23 September 1898,
AMNH-DA)

And:

I beg to repeat that he is by far the best man
for the investigation of the Chukchi and the
other tribes of the Bering peninsula. ... Mr.
Bogoraz speaks Chukchi fluently. He is well
prepared to conduct ethnological work, and
he is willing to start at once, if so required.
(Jochelson to Boas, 3 November 1898,
AMNH-DA)

On October 28, 1 898, Boas mailed to Jochelson a
letter containing the terms of the latter's employment
for the expedition: the AMNH offered to employ
Jochelson for a period of three and a half years at a
salary of $ 1 00 a month, with an additional $4,000 set
aside for field expenses. Jochelson had to come to
New York on or around February 1 , 1 899, in order to
receive special instructions in regard to his fieldwork.
He was required to then proceed to the north coast of

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

the Sea of Okhotsk in spring 1 899. He was to devote
his time from summer 1 899 until late winter 1 900 to
the study of the local Koryak people and then pay a
visit to the eastern groups of the Yukagir. The scope of
his work was defined as follows:

You would have to make collections of
specimens illustrating the customs and the
physical characteristics of the people. These
collections should include ethnographical
specimens of all kinds, skeletons and skulls,
so far as these can be obtained, photo-
graphs, and casts in plaster-of-Paris. Your
studies would be devoted primarily to the
ethnology of the people, including a thor-
ough study of language and mythology and
anthropometric measures. After you have
completed your studies, you will return to
New York. Your return will be expected
approximately in the beginning of 1 901 . The
following year and a half you would engage
to work up in the American Museum of
Natural History the scientific results of your
field work. The scientific results, as well as
collections made during the journey, would
become the exclusive property of the
American Museum of Natural History. No
results could be published except according
to directions given by authority of the
Museum. (Boas to Jochelson, 28 October
1898, AMNH-DA)

In addition, the AMNH would furnish photographic
equipment and supplies for the journey and pay for
transportation to and from Vladivostok via New York.

Jochelson replied from Bern that he could accept
the conditions if the AMNH were ready to consider
what he called "changes and clarifications in detail."**
These included an increase of his monthly salary to
$1 50 for the 18 months in New York in 1901-02; pro-
vision of additional resources for shipping the collec-
tions from the town of Gizhiga on the Sea of Okhotsk
to New York; payment of $ 1 00 extra for acquisition of
ethnographic literature on Siberia; insurance to be paid
by the museum; and some other financial conditions.
But far more important were Jochelson's "clarifications"
regarding his future rights as a collector and author:

I don't want to process the results of the
anthropological research (measurements,
masks, etc.) myself, but prefer to leave it to the

Museum to give to an anthropologist to do. .
. . I would like to evaluate the Koryak
ethnographic, ethnologic and linguistic
material myself. The finished work which will
belong to the Museum will be published
under my name. The Yukagir material is mine,
I collected it during three years of field work.
... I can give the old Yukagir information to
the Museum on the condition that I can also
give the combined old and new material at
the same time to the Russian Geographical
Society, in Russian (both publications must
naturally appear under my name). (Jochelson
to Boas, 10 November 1898, AMNH-DA)

He also discussed minor details of purchasing supplies
and shipping equipment to Vladivostok (the RAS
agreed to pay for the latter) and indicated that it would
be better for him to postpone the expedition for two
years and complete his doctorate. He was, however,
ready to abandon that and leave for St. Petersburg in
early December of 1 898 if Boas insisted. Boas replied
on December 5, 1898. He accepted some of
Jochelson's "clarifications" while declining others.

You must consider it as the primary object of
your journey (1) to study and to collect
among the Koryak, and (2) to make ethno-
logical collections among the Yukagheer.
Everything else is secondary. ... On the
whole, your proposed modifications of my
propositions seem to imply a fear that this
Museum might interfere with your rights as
an author and investigator. There is no
inclination on our part to do so. On the
contrary, we hope that the expedition, when
carried out, will materially contribute to your
reputation, and assist you in obtaining a
satisfactory station in life. (Boas to Jochelson,
5 December 1898, AMNH-DA)

By this time, Jochelson's and Bogoras' participa-
tion in the Jesup North Pacific Expedition had already
been decided by Boas. But he still had to persuade
Jesup that this choice was the best one, even though
employing two men was more expensive than one.
As Boas wrote to Jesup, "These two men acquired
such familiarity with work in that region, that it ap-
peared unwise to employ any one else to do work
there" (2 November 1 898, AMNH-DA). This new deci-
sion, however, implied certain complications:

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

For the immediate purpose of the Jesup
Expedition, it would have been sufficient to
collect a certain amount of information on
the tribes of the Sea of Okhotsk and of the
west coast of Bering Strait, without going
into certain details. Mr. Jochelson, however, is
not willing to take up work in eastern Siberia
unless he can exhaust the field, besides, he
asks to be employed for a considerable
length of time, and his salary represents a
very considerable sum of money. The same
would be true of Mr. Bogoraz, although to a
less extent. Thus we are placed in the
following position: we might adhere to our
old plan to send a young man to the region
referred to, and try to obtain what we want.
If we do so, the work will be done less
thoroughly, and not so well as it would be
done by Messrs. Jochelson and Bogoraz.
Besides, since these two men exist, and as
their work is appreciated by European
scientists, there is no doubt that efforts will
be made to give them an opportunity to
carry out the proposed work. ... If, therefore,
we should not employ them, but send an-
other man, we should be exposed to danger
of doing imperfect work, which in the course
of a few years might be superseded by the
much better work. ... A difficult choice is,
therefore, presented to us, in that we need
information from the region in question, and
that we cannot wisely employ any one but
the two Russian gentlemen. (Boas to Jesup, 2
November 1898, AMNH-DA)

It is difficult to say whether this letter was just
political or if, in fact. Boas was really impressed by the
extensive knowledge Jochelson had of the area and
the Natives. In any case, he allowed Jochelson to influ-
ence the original plan of the expedition by expanding
its area to encompass the Yukagir and "exhaust the
field." A semiofficial letter was written on December 6,
1 898, proposing that Bogoras survey the Chukchi be-
ginning in 1900 for 12 to 15 months, on conditions
similar to those offered to Jochelson.

A month later. Boas received a letter from Jochelson
in Paris. Jochelson accepted all the proposed condi-
tions and agreed to leave Switzerland in September
1 899 to start preparations for his departure. He once
again reminded Boas of Bogoras: "It should be advis-
able that my departure and Mr. Bogoraz' should take
place at the same time" (Jochelson to Boas, 4 January
1 899, AMNH-DA).

In January 1 899 Bogoras returned to St. Petersburg
and began working at the Museum of Anthropology
and Ethnography under the direction of Radloff. In the
first week of March, Boas received a letter from Bogoras
in which he accepted all the conditions. "I am happy,"
Radloff wrote to Boas, "that my mediation had such
positive results and you can now go ahead with the
arrangements for the expedition in Asia" (Radloff to
Boas, 27 February 1899, AMNH-DA).

Siberian Expedition Preparations, 1899-1900

For several of the months that followed, the corre-
spondence between Boas and his Russian partners
focused mainly on purchasing supplies and equipment
for the expedition. Both parties tried to do this as inex-
pensively as possible; they wrote numerous letters and
made dozens of inquiries about the prices of flour,
canned milk, barter items, and gifts for local people.
The whole plan was beginning to take tangible shape,
although the organizers had to overcome all sorts of
problems, some of them rather peculiar. For example,
the U.S. Customs had no classification entries for "eth-
nographic objects"; if they were "Specimens of Natu-
ral History," no tax was due, but customs officials were
not sure. An officer cited a letter by the auditor for the
Treasury Department and then presented his own in-
terpretation:

The articles are classified as specimens of
Natural History, free, under Paragraph 666
New Tariff. This classification however would
appear to be erroneous. In the opinion of this
office, the term "Specimens of Natural
History" applies only to natural objects, and
does not apply to any artificial product or
manufacture. ... As to the "Anthropological
Specimens" it is impossible to tell from the
description whether they were natural or
artificial. ... I think the Auditor right in his
claim that the plaster casts and the Indian
ladder are not specimens of Natural History .
. . [and are to] be classified under Paragraph
702 N. T. . . . because, in my judgment,
Ethnology is a science, viz.; the science
which treats of the division of mankind into
races, their origin, distribution and relations,
and the peculiarities which distinguish them.

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

If they are to be classified under paragrapli
702, tlien a bond is required. (Official to
Winser, 10 November 1897, AMNH-DA)

At the turn of the century, even customs officers were
discussing the definition of ethnology. But, along with
answering letters from the U.S. Customs, Franz Boas
had much more serious decisions to make.

Where to Go and What to Study
In the shaping of the content and route of the Siberian
portion of the Jesup Expedition, the very different back-
grounds, training, and experience of Boas and his two
Russian partners had unforeseen consequences. In so-
cial science research, it is almost impossible to investi-
gate one's ideas in a purely technical manner or even
to collect data according to a rigid, standardized ques-
tionnaire. The interference of the researcher's personal-
ity—the "observer's paradox"— sometimes is so strong
that two people who study the same phenomenon
might get very different results. What Boas expected
the Russians to do was to become his eyes, ears, and
arms. They had to go to specific areas, make anthro-
pometric measurements, record folklore texts, collect
objects, and return to Boas in New York. He wanted to
train them specially for the job. He wrote to Radloff:

My intention is to have both Mr. Jochelson
and Mr. Bogoras here for a few months, in
order to make sure that the work on physical
anthropology will be done according to the
same methods, so that our results may be
comparable. (18 April 1899, AMNH-DA)

Boas aspired, within the limited funds he had, to
carry out the maximum research to both satisfy his
scholarly interests and give Jesup and the AMNH as
much prestige and publicity as possible. But it became
clear from the start that the Russians had their own
ideas as to where and how to do research in Siberia.

jochelson was the first to resist Boas' plan. In a
letter quoted above, Radloff informed Boas that
jochelson consented to go "only to the Yukagirs"
(Radloff to Boas, 23 February 1898, AMNH-DA), al-
though Boas needed information on the peoples of

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

the North Pacific coast— the Koryak, Chukchi, and Nivkh.
The Yukagir were located too far in the interior to be of
special interest, according to Boas' vision of the expe-
dition, jochelson eventually yielded and agreed to go
first to study the Koryak. But even after this incident,
he continued to suggest various side trips, such as a
trip to visit the ancient Yukagir burial sites. To that.
Boas had to answer rather bluntly, "I think that the
journey to the ancient graves of the Yukagirs is practi-
cally out of the question on account of the additional
expense" (Boas tojochelson, 5 December 1 898, AMNH-
DA). Then Bogoras proposed a similarly unwelcome
side trip. He suggested a route for his expedition that
was obviously designed not so much to meet the goals
of Boas and the jNPE as to satisfy his personal scientific
interests. After consulting with Nikolay Condatti, the
former governor of the area, Bogoras wrote to Boas
regarding the route of the expedition:

The best starting point should be Markovo
on the river Anadyr . . . [from there] to the
Chaun Bay and . . . along the coast to Bering
Strait . . . [then] Naukan and Welen, the
greatest villages of the littoral Chukchee,
[and] return to Anadyr by baidara [skin boat]
in the next summer. In that way I can visit all
the littoral villages of both oceans. (Bogoras
to Boas, 22 March 1899, APS-NYPL)

This was an ambitious and clever plan. Bogoras
was, quite understandably, more interested in the
Maritime (or coastal) Chukchi than in the Reindeer
people whom he already knew, so he tried to con-
vince Boas of this plan. He seemed also unaware at
that time that Naukan was not a Chukchi village
but a Yupik one.

The study of Chukchean language had been
made by me before and needs now but for
some supplement, the more that in the
Chukchee there exist but very scarce differ-
ence of dialect. I have also collected materi-
als concerning the material state of life, folk-
lore, rites and myths, family and tribe life etc.
of the reindeer Chukchee. In my further study
I must firstly complete all these informations
and secondly get corresponding investiga-
tion of the littoral part of the people.
(Bogoras to Boas, 22 March 1899, APS-NYPL)

8 3

The timing of the expedition was also disputed.
Both Bogoras and Jochelson were busy publishing their
materials, and on top of that, Jochelson was planning
to complete his doctoral exams in Switzerland. As late
as July 1 899, Bogoras asked for Boas' consent to post-
pone the start of the expedition until 1901 (Bogoras
to Boas, 9 July 1 899, APS-NYPL). But the expedition, for
both Bogoras and Jochelson, was obviously too at-
tractive to risk missing the chance. Four days later,
Bogoras wrote another letter and said that he would
leave the decision in Boas' hands. He was ready to
start right away: it was Just that 1901 would have
been better for him.

Boas was ready to postpone the expedition but
was not happy about it. In a letter to Radloff, he wrote:

I have agreed to his [Bogoras'] request to
delay his expedition until 1 901 , although I
should be glad to get the whole matter
started. ... If you do not consider the delay
necessary, I beg to ask you kindly to sug-
gest to him the desirability of not delaying
the expedition any longer than is absolutely
necessary. (Boas to Radloff, 8 August 1 899,
AMNH-DA)

Eventually, the whole matter was settled. Shortly
before leaving Switzerland, Jochelson informed Boas
that he had convinced Bogoras not to postpone the
expedition (20 August 1 899, AMNH-DA). In a joint let-
ter 1 1 days later, Bogoras and Jochelson informed Boas
that they had had a conference, that Radloff insisted
that Bogoras go together with Jochelson, and that they
would come to New York in mid-February 1900. The
"mutiny" was suppressed; the Russians were now ready
to go at the time and to the area decided by Boas and
to become students. "We would like to know how
much time will be required to get acquainted with
your anthropometrical methods, as well as with other
goals of the expedition" (Bogoras and Jochelson to
Boas, 31 August 1899, AMNH-DA).

Why was the idea of such an expedition so attrac-
tive to both Bogoras and Jochelson? We will probably
never know; perhaps they wanted to return as free
people and scholars to the land of their exile to prove

something to somebody, or perhaps they believed
that this expedition would, as Boas put it, "materially
contribute to their reputation and assist them in ob-
taining a satisfactory station in life," or perhaps they
had fallen in love with ethnography.

New Scenario for the Expedition

Boas began advising Jochelson and Bogoras on the
literature they should acquaint themselves with be-
fore departing. He sent them copies of the first publi-
cations on the Jesup Expedition (Boas 1898a, 1898b,
1 898c), Hoffman's monograph on the art of the Es-
kimo (Hoffman 1 897), and Petitot's book on the Cana-
dian Indians (Petitot 1 886). He also referred them to
Aurel Krause's volume on the Tlingit (Krause 1 885), to
his own Indianische Sagen (Boas 1 895), to his newly
published contribution on KwakiutI social organiza-
tion and secret societies (Boas 1 897), and to some
other books. "The most important literature on the
Pacific Coast of North America," Boas added, "is con-
tained in the early descriptions of Veniaminoff
[Veniaminov 1846— N.V.], the early Russian mission-
ary, which you will certainly find in St. Petersburg" (Boas
to Jochelson, 1 9 September 1 899, AMNH-DA).

After many discussions, a new plan for the expedi-
tion was drawn up jointly by Jochelson and Bogoras
and approved by Boas. According to this plan, the
two Russian participants were to do research on the
Koryak as a team. They were planning to go first to
the small Russian town of Gizhiga on the coast of the
Sea of Okhotsk and spend half a year together work-
ing among the nearby groups of Koryak. Jochelson
was to take the photographs and anthropological
measurements and make the plaster-of-paris masks,
while Bogoras was planning to study the Koryak lan-
guage (using his previous knowledge of the closely
related Chukchi). Ethnographic work was to be done
jointly, but mostly by Jochelson, since it would be his
task to write a book on the Koryak for the Jesup Expe-
dition series. After that, they proposed to go to the
Anadyr River together and to share the work among

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

the Chukchi in the same manner: Bogoras would docu-
ment the language and folklore, while Jochelson would
handle the anthropometry and photography. By the
end of spring 1 901 Jochelson would go backtoCizhiga
to complete the work on the Koryak, while Bogoras
would proceed to the Arctic coast and on to the Bering
Strait. On their return to the United States, Bogoras
would complete two volumes: a study of both lan-
guages, Koryak and Chukchi, and a monograph on the
Chukchi (for the JNPE series). Jochelson would present
the bulk of the photographs and anthropometry and
would write a monograph on the Koryak, working from
the data collected by both of them. Jochelson also
proposed that he write a detailed monograph on the
Yukagir and their language on the basis of both exist-
ing and new materials (Bogoras and Jochelson to Boas,
30 October 1 899, AMNH-DA).

This seemed a good plan, although it was some-
what removed from Boas' original research program
for the JNPE Siberian division. In any case, this exact
plan did not materialize in the field; instead, Bogoras
and Jochelson came to New York, met Boas face to
face, and sorted out numerous minor disagreements
and misunderstandings. I believe that they must have
personally liked each other, for the final plan of the
expedition bears visible traces of compromise, collec-
tive thinking, and consensus.

In late November 1 899, before departing for New
York, Bogoras went to the Caucasus to attend to some
personal matters, and Jochelson paid a short visit to
Zurich. They agreed to meet in Antwerp by the end of
the year and informed Boas that they were coming to
New York around February 1 900.

Formal Contract and the Final Plan
In late March 1 900, after Jochelson and Bogoras ar-
rived in New York, a formal contract between Morris
Jesup and Vladimir Jochelson was signed [and cosigned,
probably later, by another Russian, Alexander Axelrod,
a junior friend and assistant of Jochelson and Bogoras,
who was hired as the Siberian team field assistant—

ed.]. Under this contract, Jochelson was appointed to
take charge of JNPE activities in northeastern Asia. The
expedition consisted of four people: Jochelson; Bogoras;
N. C. Buxton, a zoologist in charge of zoological col-
lecting for the AMNH; and Axelrod. In addition, the
two wives, Mrs. Jochelson [Dina Jochelson-Brodsky,
1 864-1 941 ] and Mrs. (Sofia) Bogoras were allowed to
accompany the expedition in the field, although the
expenses were to be deducted from their husbands'
salaries at the expedition's end. The object of the ex-
pedition was formulated as "ethnological and biologi-
cal survey of northeastern Asia, in accordance with
special instructions given to you under this date by
Professors J. A. Allen, Franz Boas, William Beutenmuller,
and L. P. Gratacao" Cesup to Jochelson, 24 March 1 900,
AMNH-DA).

Two days later. Boas wrote the letter containing
the final instructions. It was a good example of a com-
promise between the two parties: it combined the
original plans Boas had envisioned for the northeast-
ern Asian research and numerous (and often contradic-
tory) suggestions and amendments put forward by
the Russian scholars. The document is very carefully
worded; every expression, every word, even the order
of some words, was evidently the result of many dis-
cussions. This final plan was written to satisfy every-
one. As Boas stated:

The principal object of your work will be a
thorough investigation of the Koryak,
maritime Chukchee, and eastern Yukagheer
from all points of view, ethnological,
linguistical, and somatological. You will use
every effort to collect as full information and
as full collections as possible from these
tribes. Your collections are to embrace, so far
as feasible, the whole range of objects
manufactured by the tribes enumerated
above. You will endeavor to represent fully in
your collections objects that are new to
science. You will also make special efforts to
obtain a good collection of anthropological
photographs and plaster casts. You will
make studies and collections among the
Lamoot, reindeer Chukchee, Eskimo, and
Kamchadal if opportunity should offer; but
these are not the primary object of the

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

expedition. You will use your judgment in
determining the movements of the expedi-
tion in the field, and you are expected to
arrange the movements of the party in such
a way as will secure the best results. (Boas to
Jochelson, 26 March 1900, AMNH-DA)

It seems that after meeting with the two Russians,
Boas gained a wider perspective and saw greater po-
tential in ethnographic work in Siberia. Now, instead
of insisting that they do only what was assigned to
them by the JNPE plan, he tried to exploit the sudden
opportunity of learning and acquiring more than he
had expected. The rather liberal instructions quoted
above as regards the schedule, the route, and the list
of Native peoples that the expedition had to explore
can be seen as confirmation that Boas' attitude to-
ward the project had changed slightly. Some time later,
learning that Jochelson was planning to return from
northeastern Asia to St. Petersburg not via New York
but by land across Siberia and that on his way he would
be passing the land of the Yakut [Sakha], Boas wrote a
special letter to Jesup. In it, he stated that, although
the Yakut people were, of course, "beyond the scope
of the JNPE, it would be a shame to miss such a rare
opportunity and not to acquire, with Jochelson's help,
his Yakut collection for the Museum" (Boas to Jesup, 26
March 1900, AMNH-L).

"Double-Faced Janus"

In the meantime, all the necessary steps were taken to
secure the cooperation of the Russian government.
Boas wrote to Radloff in March 1 899, "I beg you to
inform the Imperial Academy of Sciences of our plans,
and to solicit the assistance of the Academy in carry-
ing out the work" (Boas to Radloff, 24 March 1 899,
AMNH-DA). Letters were also written to everyone con-
cerned. Jesup wrote a special letter to Governor-Gen-
eral Crodekov of Amur Province thanking him for his
"valuable assistance" to Laufer and asking for further
assistance to Jochelson's team in regard to transporta-
tion to Gizhiga (Jesup to Grodekov, 9 March 1 900,
AMNH-DA). In October 1899 Radloff wrote to Jesup:

I am very glad that the affairs regarding the
expedition to North-eastern Siberia are in
good shape, and I shall do my best that the
Messrs Bogoraz and Jochelson shall receive
all possible aid from the Russian Government.
(Radloff to Jesup, 26 October 1899, AMNH-DA)

Both Jochelson and Bogoras received open letters from
the Russian government that ran as follows;

All institutions and persons under the juris-
diction of the Ministry of the Interior are
herewith commanded to render the bearer of
this all possible aid within their lawful
powers, to enable him to discharge his
mission. [Dated November 11, 1899 and
signed Head of the Ministry of the Interior
etc., etc. Sipyagin; Director of the Depart-
ment of General Affairs . . . Trepov.]

Five months later, when Jochelson and Bogoras were
already on their way to Vladivostok, the Russian Min-
istry of the Interior issued a completely different mes-
sage (28 April 1 900). Confidential instructions were
sent to the local Siberian officials in charge requesting
that secret surveillance be established to monitor the
actions of both Bogoras and Jochelson. It was stated
that, due to their earlier antigovernment activities, it
was "entirely unwarranted to render them assistance
of any kind in the scientific work assigned to them" (for
discussion, see Freed et al. 1 988). As Bogoras put it in
one of his letters to Boas several years later, and in a
different connection, "this is Russia, you know."

The whole story became known several years later
when a Russian-language newspaper, Osvobozhde-
niye ("Liberation"), based in Stuttgart, published an ar-
ticle entitled "The Double-Faced Janus." The story was
actually written by Jochelson himself in January 1903
in St. Petersburg but was published under the alias
"Docent." The article was later translated into English
for Morris Jesup's attention and information. In a cover
letter. Boas wrote:

I think the loyalty of Mr. Jochelson, who
knew about all these matters while in Siberia,
and the energy and skill of both Messrs.
Jochelson and Bogoras, deserve special
commendation under these circumstances. . .
. You will appreciate how difficult the work

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

of both Mr. Bogoras and Mr. Jochelson was
made by these secret orders; and the full
success of their investigation deserves, for
this reason, the highest praise. (Boas to Jesup,
4 March 1903, AMNH-DA)

Epilogue: The Beginning

Five years after the idea of a full-scale anthropological
and linguistic expedition in the North Pacific area first
struck Franz Boas, the second Siberian party of the
Jesup Expedition, led by Vladimirjochelson and Vladimir
Bogoras, was set to leave for fieldwork on the North-
east Coast of Siberia.

On May 1 6, 1 900, Jochelson and Bogoras arrived
in Vladivostok. Here they met Axelrod, who had pre-
ceded them. Everything that had been shipped from
Russia and Europe arrived safely, and they began get-
ting the equipment ready. In his first letter to Boas,
Jochelson wrote that Governor Grodekov was very
obliging and had promised to give them any help they
needed (Jochelson to Boas, 20 May 1900, AMNH-DA).
Obviously, the governor had not yet received the se-
cret memorandum from the Ministry of the Interior cir-
culated two weeks earlier.

On June 1 4 Bogoras and his wife Sofia left for
Mariinsky Post at the mouth of the Anadyr River on
board the ship Baikal. About a month later, on July 24,
Jochelson and his wife Dina Jochelson-Brodsky (accom-
panied by Buxton and Axelrod) followed them. The
main work of the JNPE in Siberia thus began.

The history of the JNPE Siberian fieldwork in 1 900-
02, as well as the long and painful story of the publica-
tion problems, took place against the backdrop of,
and was illuminated by, the many dramatic events of
the first third of the 20th century. These included World
War I, the three Russian revolutions and the Russian
Civil War, the Great Depression, and other milestone
events in the history of the two countries (see also
Kan, this volume). As such, it deserves to be the sub-
ject of a special study and is more than this one paper
could hope to encompass.

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the Fulbright Schol-
arship I was awarded in 1 993 (November 1 993-Feb-
ruary 1 994), as well as by the generous cooperation
of the American Museum of Natural History in New
York. I also wish to thank my friends and colleagues,
who provided assistance, help, and compassion dur-
ing this work. 1 am especially grateful to Igor Krupnik
and Bill Fitzhugh for inventing this insightful and stimu-
lating project, Jesup 2; to Belinda Kaye, archivist at the
AMNH Department of Anthropology; and to Barbara
Mathe, then the archivist at the AMNH Library. Their
priceless help and friendly cooperation made this work
not only possible but often pleasant. 1 am also grateful
to Sergei Kan for sharing his data with me; to Laurel
Kendall, who, apart from valuable bibliographical as-
sistance, admitted me into her office at the AMNH for
three months, without realizing how much trouble this
would cause; to Tom Miller for his friendly, practical,
and timely advice; and to Molly Lee, the first reader of
the first draft, for most valuable critique.

Notes

1 . Part of the Boas-Bogoras-Jochelson-
Shternberg correspondence is currently held at the
Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences in
St. Petersburg (RAS-J and RAS-B). Some of Bogoras'
and Shternberg's personal collections are stored
at the Archives of the Museum of Anthropology
and Ethnology in St. Petersburg (MAE); Jochelson's
collection is mostly at the Institute of Oriental
Studies (iOS), St. Petersburg (see the description
of the Aleut section of the latter collection in
Bergsland and Dirks 1990). Originals of the Franz
Boas Professional Correspondence are at the
American Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadel-
phia. Microfilms of Boas' correspondence are avail-
able at many institutions; I used the New York
Public Library copy (APS-NYPL). The major institu-
tion that houses the papers and correspondence
related to the Jesup North Pacific Expedition is,
naturally, the American Museum of Natural His-
tory in New York, in the Library, Special Collec-
tions Division (AMNH-L), and in the Archives of

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

the Department of Anthropology (AMNH-DA).

2. The text of this letter is reproduced in
Appendix A of Douglas Cole's paper, this volume—
ed.

3. All dates for the Russian letters are "New
Style" (referring to the Gregorian calendar that was
adopted in Russia in 1918, replacing "Old Style,"
based on the Julian calendar). For example, this
letter from Radloff has two dates: February 11/
23, 1898.

4. The usual spelling in English is "Bogoras".
In his Russian publications, it is always spelled
"Bogoraz" or "Bogoraz-Tan" (Tan-Bogoraz), the lat-
ter having being his political and academic pen
name since the early 1900s. Judging by his let-
ters of the JNPE years written in English, he pre-
ferred that his name be spelled in the Russian way
(Bogoraz), although in all his JNPE publications he
is listed as Bogoras ed.

5. A detailed discussion of this episode is
available in Freed et al. 1988:12-13.

6. The party's name in Russian was Narodnaia
volia, conventionally and quite correctly translated
into English as "People's Freedom." However, the
word volia can mean mean both freedom and will
(see Vladimir Dahl, The Dictionary of Russian,
Moscow, 1956). The name of the party can thus
be understood as "People's Will."

7. Two types of political exile were in use in
Russia before the Revolution of 1905, both de-
termined either by courts or by the local adminis-
trative authorities. Exile to a certain area (ssyll<a),
usually to Eastern or Western Siberia, meant that
one had to live in a small, remote town or village,
had to report to the local police every week or
month, and had no right to leave the place with-
out special permission. Exile from a certain area
(vysylka) usually meant that one was forbidden
to live in the capitals, big cities, or central prov-
inces of Russia but otherwise was free to move.
Jochelson, Bogoras, and Shternberg were sen-
tenced to ssylka—the worst kind of exile.

8. I quote here from the available English
translation of Jochelson's letters, originally writ-
ten in German. These were translated in 1986 by
Renate Khambatta and Laila Williamson; the trans-
lation is now kept at the AMNH Department of
Anthropology in New York.

References
Al'kor, Yan P.

1935 V. G. Bogoraz-Tan. Sovetskaia etnografiia 4-
5:5-31. Leningrad, ffanslated in Antlnropology and
Archeology of Eurasia 35(3):43-72 (1996-97).]

Bergsland, Knud, and Moses L. Dirks, eds.

1990 Aleut Tales and Narratives, Collected 1909-
1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Alaska Native Lan-
guage Center. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.

Boas, Franz

1 888 The Central Eskimos. Sixth Annual Report of the
Bureau of American Ethnology, 1884-85. Pp. 399-
669. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1 895 Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen KCiste
Amerikas. Sonder-Abdruck aus den Verhandlungen
der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie
und Urgeschichte, 1 891 bis 1 895. Berlin: A. Asher &
Co. Reprint: Bonn: Holos Verlag, 1992.

1 897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-
ies of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Obser-
vations and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt.
Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1 895. Pp.
31 1 -738. Washington, DC: Government Printing Of-
fice.

1 898a Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern Brit-
ish Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, \/o\.
1 , pt. 1 , pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Mu-
seum of Natural History, 2. New York.

1898b The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 1 , pp. 1 -1 2. Mem-
oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 2.
New York.

1 898c The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 2, pp. 25-
127. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, 2. New York.

Brown, W. A.

1910 Morris Ketchum Jesup: A Character Sketch. New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Dexter, R. W.

1 976 The Role of F. W. Putnam in Developing Anthro-
pology at the American Museum of Natural History.
Cwrator 19:303-10.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Igor Krupnik

1994 The Jesup II Research Initiative: Anthropological
Studies in the North Pacific. Arctic Studies Center
Nev\/sletter (jesup II Newsbrief). Washington, DC: Arc-
tic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution.

Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila

Williamson

1 988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-
aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902).
American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

Hinsley, Curtis M., Jr., and Bill Holm

1976 A Cannibal in the National Museum: The Early
Career of Franz Boas in America. American Anthro-
pologist 78(2): 306- 16.

Hoffman, Walter

1 897 The Graphic Art of the Eskimos. Report of the
U.S. National Museum for 1895. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution.

Kan, Sergei

1978 Lev Shternberg: From Revolutionary Populism
to Evolutionary Anthropology. Manuscript. [Quoted
with author's permission.]

Kendall, Laurel

1 988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads of
Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William
W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 1 04. Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kennedy, J. M.

1969 Philanthropy and Science in New York City:
The American Museum of Natural History, 1 868-
1968. Ph.D. diss.. University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.

Krader, Lawrence

1968 Bogoraz, Vladimir C, Sternberg, Lev Y.; and
Jochelson, Vladimir. In International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, vol. 2. David L. Sills, ed. Pp. 1 1 6-
9. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Krause, Aurel

1 885 Die Tlinkit-lndianer: Ergebnisse einer Reise nach
der Nord-westkuste von Amerika und der
Beringstrasse. Ausgefuhrt im Auftrage der Bremer
Ceographischen Gesellschaft in der Jahren 1880-
1 88 1 durch die Doctoren Arthur und Aurel Krause /
geschildert von Dr. Aurel Krause. Jena: Hermann
Costenoble.

Ol'denburg, Sergei F., and A. N. Samoilovich,
eds.

1930 Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-1927) (In
memory of L. la. Shternberg). Leningrad: Akademia
Nauk SSR.

Petitot, Emil

1 886 Traditions indiennes du Canada Nord-Ouest. Les
Litteratures populaires de toutes les nations 23. Paris:
Maisonneuve Freres et Ch. Leclerc.

Proposed Explorations on the Coasts of the

North Pacific Ocean

1897 Science, n.s. 5(1 1 6):455-7.

Rohner, Ronald P., ed.

1 969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-
ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northvt/est Coast
from 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Segel, S.

n.d. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Manuscript.
Stocking, George W., Jr.

1973 Franz Boas. In Dictionary of American Biogra-
phy, supp. 3. E. T.James, ed. Pp. 81-6. New York:
Scribner.

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1974 The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-
1911: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

Veniaminov, Ivan E.

1846 Zamechaniia o koloshenskom i kad'iakskom
iazykakh i otchasti o prochikh rossiisko-amerik-
anskikh, s prisovokupleniem rossiisko-koloshenskogo
slovaria, soderzhashchego bolee 1 000 slov (Remarks
on the Tlingit and Koniag languages, and partly on
others of Russian America, with the addition of a
Russian-Tlingit dictionary containing more than 1 ,000
words). St. Petersburg: Academy of Sciences.

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

24/ Kwakwaka'wakw (KwakiutI) woman at Fort Rupert demonstrates cedar spinning for a museum life group, as Franz
Boas and George Hunt hold up a backdrop. O.C. Hastings, photographer, 1 894 (AMNH 1 1 604)

THE COLLECTORS: MODERN PERSPECTIVES ON
JESUP FIELDWORK

(Di5)p

easures o

f th

ext

^oasian {^thnoiogtj on the (^entra! |\jorthwest (^^oast

MICHAEL HARKIN

The ambitious project of the Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition (1 897-1 902) was historically significant for many
reasons: the cooperation between anthropologists and
capitalists (see Freed et al. 1 988); the expedition's rich
legacy of Siberian ethnography (see other papers in
this volume); and its contribution to the understanding
of important ethnological issues in the North Pacific
Rim. However, the ethnographic legacy of the Jesup
Expedition on the Central Northwest Coast, by which I
mean the area populated by the Bella Coola [Nuxalk],
the Oowekeeno, and the Heiltsuk [Bella Bella], is rather
meager. The three cultures are closely related, and the
latter two possess very similar languages. The poverty
of the Boasian record in this region is possibly attribut-
able in part to the practical difficulties Franz Boas had
in getting the Jesup materials published. A survey of
the archival materials, however, is equally unsatisfying;
the American Philosophical Society indexes are sur-
prisingly silent on Oowekeeno, Bella Bella, and Bella
Coola material from the Jesup Expedition period.

What we do have are a volume of Bella Coola myths
collected by Boas and several Heiltsuk myths collected
by Boas' Columbia colleague, the psychologist
Livingston Farrand (Boas 1898a, 1898b, 1916:883-8,
1 932).' Boas, assisted by George Hunt and Harlan Smith,
conducted research at Bella Coola from mid-July to
late August 1 897. Boas and Hunt were occupied pri-
marily with the collection of myths, while Smith made
cranial measurements and completed a valuable pho-
tographic portfolio of the area (Boas 1 898a; see Tepper
1 991 ; Thom, this volume). Farrand, along with George

Hunt, spent about a month from mid-August to mid-
September 1 897 in the village of Bella Bella; they were
briefly joined by Harlan Smith, who made cranial mea-
surements (Boas 1 898a).

In 1 897, when the research was being carried out,
both these societies were undergoing rapid, radical
culture change and were displaying renewed cultural
and political vitality. After decades of suffering the
scourge of introduced diseases, these groups were
relatively healthy, their populations were resurgent, and
they were enjoying unprecedented prosperity. They
were experimenting with new artistic and architectural
styles, and they were attempting to reconcile evan-
gelical Christianity with traditional belief systems. They
were coming into contact with more than just the
evangelical and commercial aspects of European and
Canadian society. For instance, the Bella Coola had an
unusual opportunity to observe European culture when
a group of dancers was invited to tour Germany in
1885-86 (Tepper 1991:142-9). They brought back
many new ideas that they incorporated into their cul-
ture. Most strikingly, Gothic architectural forms ap-
peared in at least one chiefly house, where spires were
used to represent a nearby mountain (Mc llwraith
1948:194; Tepper 1991: 7).

The Heiltsuk, in the village of Bella Bella, were en-
gaged in what may be described as a "revitalization
movement" based on enthusiastic Methodism (see
Harkin 1 993).^ The Heiltsuk combined Methodist mor-
alism and work ethic with traditional concepts of per-
sonal power to create a powerful new ethos relevant

9 3

to contemporary problems. Although this resulted in
the curtailing of many traditional practices, there was
also a large element of syncretism present. Christmas
celebrations bore a strong resemblance to potlatches
and even, to some degree, to winter dances (ceremo-
nies). Moreover, the self-initiated changes in Heiltsuk
society had resulted in a level of prosperity unprec-
edented in any native community in British Columbia.
Local businesses, including a cooperative general store,
flourished, providing the Heiltsuk with a reasonable
supply of luxury items, as well as staples. While such
changes may strike the romantic anthropologist as
distasteful, they nevertheless were central to the
evolving Heiltsuk identity at the turn of the century
(Harkin 1 997).

Ironically, the Methodist missionaries, not the eth-
nographers, are the ones who give a full account of
these changes. Although their reports are strongly bi-
ased, missionaries such as C. M. Tate, the founder (in
1 881 ) of the Bella Bella mission, were sensitive to cul-
tural dynamics. Tate, along with his wife Caroline, kept
a close journalistic record of changes in Heiltsuk cul-
ture. Later missionaries, such as the first medical doc-
tor to minister to the Heiltsuk, R. W. Large, were like-
wise extraordinarily sensitive to a range of issues con-
cerning culture change. It is relatively easy to factor
out their biases and to derive a fairly good picture of
Heiltsuk culture in this transitional period. Change did
not always proceed smoothly; it was often resisted in
ways both subtle and direct. The missionaries were,
arguably, the very best observers of such things, as
resistance was a threat to their authority. By drawing
on missionary sources such as diaries, articles published
in denominational journals, and membership and finan-
cial records, it is possible to gain some understanding
of fin de siecle Heiltsuk society (Harkin 1 993).

The missionaries were biased against traditional
culture, but they were nevertheless engaged in it. Boas,
however, harbored a long-standing opposition to mis-
sionary activities and a strong distaste when forced to
rely on missionaries for linguistic data (Berman 1996;

221-3; Stocking 1974:68-9). In part, this arose from
ethical concerns generated by cultural relativism; in part,
it reflected an unrealistic methodological stance that
asserted several related principles (discussed below)—
foremost among them, a positivist assertion that it
was possible to be an unbiased and objective ob-
server, in the fashion of the natural sciences. This stance
was taken to great lengths, to the degree that Boas
systematically disguised the identity of George Hunt
and his role in actively generating ethnographic data
for the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI] and other groups
(Berman 1996:228-9). The idea was to reach some
overarching, static, ideal type of culture, detached from
its pragmatic and socially positioned moorings among
real people. This stance proved difficult for Boas'
KwakiutI ethnography and simply unworkable for his
ethnography of the Central Coast. Ultimately, and ironi-
cally, the obviously positioned observer, such as the
missionary— provided he or she is reasonably sympa-
thetic—is more reliable than the objective scientist.

Boasian Fieldwork: Objects and Methods

In contrast to missionary accounts, Jesup materials (and
Boasian ethnography more generally) give little sense
of a living community in transition. Indeed, Boas' often-
affirmed commitment to empiricism notwithstanding,
it is difficult to view Boasian texts as transcriptions of
actual experience. Of course, Boas was driven by con-
temporary concerns, such as the evidence for diffu-
sion that myth and physical anthropology could pro-
vide. Moreover, the rich legacy of KwakiutI ethnology,
resting on its "five-foot shelf," is not to be dismissed
(Darnell 1992:44-5). Although we cannot agree with
Radcliffe-Brown that Boasian texts are utterly useless—
indeed, the rich ethnographic minutiae of the KwakiutI
work is its great strength— it is undeniable that Boasian
materials fail to address any of the important and
interesting cultural transformations that occurred
under the very noses of the Jesup ethnographers
(Berman 1996:216-7; Darnell 1 992:41 ). While it would
be unfair to criticize Boas for failing to comprehend

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

and thematize in his anthropology issues of social
change that would not be addressed systematically
until the first wave of acculturation studies in the 1 930s,
we can allow ourselves to wonder why all evidence of
history and change was systematically suppressed in
Boasian texts. After all, the Bureau of American Ethnol-
ogy ethnographer James Mooney did produce histori-
cally and culturally sensitive work during the very same
decade of the 1 890s.

The situation is analogous to the position of Alfred
Kroeber with respect to California ethnology and
ethnohistory. As Buckley (1996) has pointed out,
Kroeber consistently underrepresented the importance
of history in understanding the contemporary Califor-
nia Indians. What is more, he denied the severity and
significance of genocidal policies and actions, which
continued even after Kroeber was established in Cali-
fornia. Clearly, Kroeber's failure to account for history
and culture change, especially in comparison with con-
temporaries such as T. T. Waterman and J. P. Harrington,
was a moral as well as epistemological one. Boas' fail-
ing was not primarily moral, as he spoke out against
Canadian government actions that were certainly much
less destructive than the California genocide. Never-
theless, his systematic ethnography, like Kroeber's,
failed to take account of such matters in the way that
others, less systematic but more sympathetic, did.

As a young anthropologist working the village of
Bella Bella (Waglisia) in the mid-1980s, a village that
my professional founding ancestor had visited in 1897
and 1923, I was naturally interested to collect any
stories that might persist. But few stories about Boas
remained. The only information I ever heard— from sev-
eral people— was that during his 1 923 visit Boas spent
much of his time going to the post office. The post
office was located several miles from the main village
site, over low mountains; a round trip took two hours
or more. The large investment of time in this activity
illustrates the rather peculiar Boasian methodology—
Berman aptly calls it "epistolary ethnography"— which
relied heavily on postal services and was devoted

above all to the production of texts (Berman 1 996:235).

Three characteristics of Boasian fieldwork are worth
examining, for they explain the dearth of information
on dynamic social processes, particularly on the Cen-
tral Coast: framing, textualism, and "Kwakiutlism." In
fairness, these characteristics explain some of the
strengths of Boasian anthropology as well, such as the
rich legacy of KwakiutI ethnography and of myths and
stories from other groups.

Framing

Framing refers to Boas' method of sorting out the ab-
original from that which was tainted by white contact
and, generally, by the modern world (see Coffman
1974:10). In his experiments with ethnographic film
and in his principles of museum display, the object is
strictly framed; it is recontextualized in an artificial frame
that nevertheless purports to represent ethnographic
reality Gacknis 1 985). Such simulacra allow for detailed
description and (perhaps) analysis of the ethnographic
object. They separate the object from its background,
the semantic message from pragmatic "noise." In tex-
tual ethnography, this goes beyond the problem of
anachronism. Unlike Edward Curtis, who wished to re-
capture a lost world that was in large part a product
of his own and a collective national imagination. Boas
observed what was actually present. However, what
he observed was only an increasingly small part of the
actual world and was, moreover, often dependent on
the ethnographic frame itself. As Berman points out,
the conditions of production of the KwakiutI texts were
crucial to their existence (Berman 1 996:232). Hunt pre-
pared texts in response to questions from Boas and
after consulting with several informants. The end prod-
uct is a distillation of Hunt's interpretation of both Boas'
interests and the diverse testimony of informants.

Even when Boas was carrying out his own field-
work, the object of collecting texts that represented a
whole culture's shared beliefs tended to filter out infor-
mation that was not consistent with such a holistic
and traditional picture. This ethnographic Heisenberg

MICHAEL HARKIN

effect is to some degree an unavoidable part of field-
work. However, the complete reliance on formal inter-
views of elderly and "traditional" individuals, charac-
teristic of Boas' Heiltsuk and Bella Coola research, se-
verely limited the type and quality of data. The consti-
tution of the ethnographic object by its frame may
serve a useful pedagogic or scientific purpose, as in
high-energy physics, but it does not provide much in-
formation about the everyday world, or about pro-
cesses common to the readers and objects of ethno-
graphic texts.

The peculiar framing device known as the "ethno-
graphic present" is central to Boasian anthropology. It
is a distancing technique, one that "denies coevalness"
with the ethnographic object (Fabian 1 983). All ac-
tion, apart from speech, takes place in a Neverland of
unlived time. The ethnographic present is founded on
the linguistic and logical paradox of past action that is
recorded as if it were taking place in the present, on-
going, and unaffected by normal relations of before
and after. Not only are the ethnographic objects not
to be found in the same historical epoch as the anthro-
pologist and his readers; their world appears to be
temporally constituted outside normal human time and
being. In a rhetorical move opposite to Barthes' "real-
ity effect," which rests on the verisimilitude created by
temporal sequencing in historiography, the effect of
reading texts cast in the "ethnographic present" is dis-
tinctly one of unreality (Barthes 1 986:1 41 -8).

In the introduction to his Jesup volume The Mythol-
ogy of the Bella Coola Indians, Boas essays an ethno-
graphic synopsis of the Bella Coola that epitomizes
some of the distancing tropes employed throughout
the Boasian corpus:

The Bella Coola are a small tribe inhabiting
the coasts of Dean Inlet and Bentick Arm,
two long and narrow fiords situated in about
latitude 52' north, in British Columbia. . . . The
name "Bella Coola" is a corruption of the
word "Bilxula" by which name the tribe is
known to the Kwakiutl. There is no term in
their own language embracing all the tribes
speaking the Bella Coola languages. It seems

that at a former time the tribe was quite
populous; but, owing to various epidemics
and the introduction of other diseases, its
numbers have dwindled down, so that at
present time it has been reduced to only a
few hundred souls. (Boas 1898b:26)

By various rhetorical means, Boas reduces the com-
plexities of the lives of "a few hundred souls" to the
abstract questions pertaining to "a small tribe." The
first and most extraordinary linguistic act is a naming.
As elsewhere in North America, ethnonyms are assigned
to groups that have none, often using terms borrowed
from other groups (see Harkin 1 988). Such a name is
essential for the anthropologist, who, after all, studies
tribes. For Boas, this naming was equivalent to desig-
nating a Volk, with all that entailed.^ Such baptism
was necessary to the overall framing strategy.

The Volksgeist method originated by J. G. Herder
and adapted by Boas relied on a certain degree of
abstraction from observed reality. Questions of cul-
tural psychology and group mind superseded the di-
rectly observed fact. Although Boas at times strongly
defended his approach as one of strict methodologi-
cal individualism, it clearly was not that (Berman
1 996:2 1 8; Liss 1 996: 1 71 ). Rather, it gave the researcher
license to structure information in such a way as to
demonstrate the "genius" of individual cultures (Bunzl
1 996:69). Clearly, such a model deflects the immedi-
ate interests and concerns of real people in favor of
themes chosen by the researcher as indicative of the
timeless truths of that culture.

Boas alludes only briefly to the problem of change
in Bella Coola society. He is forced to admit that "their
numbers have dwindled down," but this does not pre-
vent him from accepting the present as a true repre-
sentation of the past, nor indeed of systematically
doing away with any evidence of temporality. The re-
mainder of the text is constructed after the manner of
its inaugural statement: "The Bella Coola are . . ."

Perhaps most striking about the quoted fragment
is its emotional detachment from the physical suf-
fering of the people who constitute the purported

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

subject of Boas' text. Populations in the region de-
clined from infectious disease by as much as 80 per-
cent over the 50-year period prior to Boas' fieldwork
(Boyd 1 990; Harkin 1 994). Although health and popu-
lation levels were temporarily on the rise again at the
turn of the century, fresh memories of great suffering
would surely have been expressed to Boas and other
Jesup ethnographers. It is a measure of their sangfroid
and the perceived duties of the scientist that all this
would have rated merely a token reference. Like his
student Alfred Kroeber, who spoke of the genocide of
California Indians as "the little history of pitiful events,"
Boas was relatively unconcerned with the hardships
and anguish the people had experienced in recent
memory (Buckley 1 996).

Boas' emotional detachment is in great contrast
to the other main observers of Native cultures, the mis-
sionaries, who were, if nothing else, engage. On the
matter of death and dying (of obvious concern to those
professing the existence of a glorious afterlife), we hear
the wailing and feel the sorrow of the death of chil-
dren. A typical example of missionary writings during
the plague years is by the wife of the first missionary
to the Heiltsuk:

They brought her home, and, seeing that she
was seriously ill, we brought her to the
Mission House; tried all within our power to
restore her to health. But the delirium set in,
and after three nights and days watching all
that was mortal of Jane lay with folded
hands in the sitting-room of the house, there
to await Christian burial. One of her last
conscious acts was to take her Bible from
under her pillow, and kissing it lovingly she
exclaimed, "Oh how I love Jesus!" (Tate
1883:1 11)

The pathos of this passage is representative of mis-
sionary rhetoric. It is interesting that Native peoples
should have received two sets of white visitors at the
same time, with such opposite interests and textual
strategies.''

Of course this was no coincidence. Boas' detached
language represents, above all, an attempt to distin-
guish his writings from those of others interested in

Native cultures: missionaries, "do-gooders," Indian
agents, and so on. Boas professes an interest that is,
unlike those of other whites, disinterested. Again, the
contrast with the ethnographer James Mooney is in-
structive; Mooney, in his work on the Sioux Ghost Dance,
never considered ethnography and empathy to be
contradictory (see Mooney 1 896).

Social, temporal, emotional, and geographic dis-
tance is indeed essential to Boas' view of anthropol-
ogy as a science. It is Claude Levi-Strauss who has
most explicitly formulated this position. For Levi-
Strauss, le regard eloignee (the distant, or distanced,
view) is the sine qua non of anthropology (Levi-Strauss
1976:55, 1985; Todorov 1988). This would seem es-
pecially true for Boas, who felt the need of distancing
in his early "psycho-physical" research among the Es-
kimo of Baffinland. There he hoped to achieve the "sim-
plest possible circumstances" in which to conduct his
research into perception of the environment (Stocking
1 968:1 40). Levi-Strauss— and, arguably, Boas— equated
the scientific status of ethnography with "the relative
simplification which affects every mode of knowledge
when it is applied to a very distant object" (Levi-Strauss
1976:47). Ironically, it was also Levi-Strauss who
pointed out the connection between such distancing
and the legacy of brutal conquest: "Anthropology is
the daughter to this era of violence: its capacity to
assess more objectively the facts pertaining to the
human condition reflects, on the epistemological level,
a state of affairs in which one part of mankind treated
the other as an object" (Levi-Strauss 1 966:1 26, quoted
in Buckley 1996).

Boas certainly thought of himself as a scientist and
placed great value on objective methods (Stocking,
ed. 1974:11-2). Especially in Boas' time, the distinc-
tion between science and hobbyism was crucial. Not
only was anthropology just beginning to be
professionalized in the United States and Canada, but
the strong claims that evolutionary anthropology made
to scientific status, based on its connection to evolu-
tionary biology, were not available to diffusionist

MICHAEL HARKIN

Boasians. If Boasian anthropology could not claim to
apply to cultural data "the methods and the instru-
mentalities of the biologist" (according to Otis Mason,
as quoted in Stocking, ed. 1974:12), then it seemed
that there was little, other than techniques of objecti-
fication and distantiation, that prevented it from sink-
ing into an antiquarian bog.

Framing was, above all, an attempt to get at cul-
ture as opposed to civilization, local as opposed to
universal truths. This distinction is central to the Ger-
man Counter-Enlightenment and laid the foundation
for both Boasian anthropology and German ethnol-
ogy (Bunzl 1 996:20; Stocking 1 992: 1 1 ; see also Kuper
1988:149). It was an increasingly untenable position.
The tension between the idea of local cultures as pure
founts of the "genius" of a Volk and the reality of the
colonial and postcolonial world resulted in increasingly
radical framing devices. Boas' earlier published work
among the KwakiutI (1897), ethnographically dense
and admitting some questions of change, contrasts
with his later, austere publication of "texts" (e.g., Boas
1 928). This increasing tension perhaps accounts in part
for the irony Krupat (1990) has noted in Boas' work,
which he attributes merely to the tension between
theory and fact.^ This tension is nicely epitomized in a
famous photograph showing Franz Boas and George
Hunt arranging a field photograph in Fort Rupert in
1 894. Hunt and Boas are holding up a backdrop be-
hind a KwakiutI woman dressed in traditional attire,
spinning cedar (Fig. 24). The backdrop hides a picket
fence and Victorian frame house, which would have
"spoiled" the shot (see Berman 1996:237).

Textualism

Textualism, a quality of all Boasian anthropology, is a
type of framing that masks itself. Textualism is a strat-
egy designed to quarantine the object from lived real-
ity. Texts are presented as if unmediated, as if the eth-
nographer has done nothing other than record and
publish texts that exist independently. The role of the
anthropologist in eliciting the texts, and the role of the

9 8

narrator in creating and performing them, are sup-
pressed. Above all, the role of translation, both cultural
and linguistic, is denied. The mediation provided by
"informants," and especially by the supremely media-
tional figure of George Hunt, is never fully acknowl-
edged (Berman 2000). These allegedly unmediated
"genuine, difficult, confusing, primary sources" (Sapir,
quoted in Darnell 1992:42) constituted the founda-
tion of linguistic and ethnographic description and
analysis.^

And yet texts were thought to be more than
metonymic fragments of a culture. They were meta-
phors of that culture, standing for a culture in toto. The
idea of the text is little changed from that of the
brothers Grimm, who saw folktales as the texts that
would reveal der Geist (the spirit) of the Volk. Texts
were viewed as standing in an "organic" relationship
to society itself (Ziolkowski 1 990:1 08). They revealed
a distinctive genius that, as Hegel believed, animated
all aspects of society and through which one could
approach specific social institutions (Ziolkowski
1 990: 1 4). Wilhelm von Humboldt formulated this con-
nection between text and Ceist most explicitly; for
him a "radical identity" obtained between language
and "the ideal totality of spirit" (Steiner 1992:86). It
was this Humboldtian concept of language as text
that framed the basic problematics of Boasian meth-
odology (Bunzl 1996:69-70).

Boas, of course, realized that there were other ex-
pressions of culture, other types of data he might col-
lect, but these were, in this sense, supplemental to the
texts, which would reveal all. In his KwakiutI ethnogra-
phy Boas did indeed collect and publish data on a
large range of matters, in large part to bolster his
diffusionist arguments on descent, totemism, and kin-
ship (Berman 1 996:21 5-7; Kuper 1 988:1 35-40). These
data were given a form which mimicked the canonical
myths that he and Hunt also collected by systemati-
cally erasing traces of their construction. This was not
the case, however, for the Heiltsuk and Bella Coola, for
which Boas provided ethnographic descriptions—

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

ranging from very brief to nonexistent— appended to
the texts/ Paradoxically, he comments that Heiltsuk
culture had "practically disappeared" as he was
collecting the texts— a statement that calls into ques-
tion both the usefulness of his concept of culture and
the posited connections between culture and myth
(Boas 1928:ix).

In his study of myths, Boas laid the foundation for
the modern anthropological culture concept, although,
as we have seen, this idea was borrowed directly from
the German Vo/Zcs^e/sr tradition (Bunzl 1996:21 -9;
Stocking 1968:214). In examining myths, the anthro-
pologist gained access to a "deeper" level of culture
that was partly unconscious, unrepresented, or
underrepresented in manifest behavior, perhaps even
the remnant of elements of culture that had disap-
peared Gacknis 1996:198). Moreover, myths provided
the basis for ethnological comparison and even the
possibility of reconstructing histories of the region
(Stocking 1968:206). By collecting complete sets of
tales from different cultures in a region and statistically
tabulating the results, Boas believed that he could an-
swer all important questions about culture contact and
diffusion (Boas 1 896; Stocking 1 968:207-8).

This concern with myth has become characteristic
of American anthropology in general, and yet the un-
derlying Boasian assumptions have attenuated con-
siderably. For Boas, the burden placed on myth is such
that it is made to bear the entire weight of a culture. In
practical terms, this meant that for the non-KwakiutI
cultures Boas studied or on which he commissioned
studies, myth is the only data published, even if other
sorts of data were collected. When Boas and Hunt
returned to Bella Bella in 1 923, they collected a variety
of data on religion and social organization (Boas 1 923).
Several hundred pages of notes deal with beliefs and
practices that were rapidly disappearing, especially the
Winter Ceremonial. Very little of this material, however,
was published (see Boas 1924, 1928, 1932).

The only justification for the view that myth stands
for culture in toto— which, if never expressed so baldly,

MICHAEL HARKIN

was nevertheless the operating principle of Boasian
research— is a form of neo-Kantian idealism that sub-
ordinates all factors to mental ones. This is seen most
clearly in the work of the German psychologist Theodor
Waitz, which was read and cited extensively by Boas
and Boasian anthropologists (Smith 1991:49). Waitz
held that human cultures were united by a shared psy-
chic unity but that important cultural differences were
expressed in myth. Cultural variation was a product of
environment, history, and the existence of individual
geniuses— ideas clearly influential in Boasian anthropol-
ogy, although Boas preferred to talk about the genius
of culture, in the Humboldtian vein.

While not evident in all aspects of Boas' work, these
ideas permeate his research on myth, which was
strongly influenced by other anthropological idealists,
such as Bastian and Tylor (themselves influenced by
Waitz), who were interested in the "psychic life" of primi-
tive peoples (Bunzl 1996:49-51; Stocking 1968:152,
207). It is on this ground that Boas and Levi-Strauss, so
different in other respects, meet. Like Waitz, Boas, in
his desire to distance himself from the racialist elements
of German romanticism, exaggerated the significance
of myth as a mental phenomenon in the constitution
of culture (Smith 1 991 :50; Stocking 1 992:92-1 1 3). He
was so engrossed with the collection of myths that he
viewed performed culture, such as the Winter Ceremo-
nial, as a hindrance to the collection and transcription
of texts Oacknis 1996:199).

The problems with such a view from a philosophi-
cal position have been addressed repeatedly in the
social sciences. For present purposes, it is appropriate
to address the issue on a more pragmatic level. The
relation between myth and social change is worth ex-
ploring, for my initial critique of Boas rested on his habit
of ignoring dynamic processes.

Myth may give us a sort of "window" into the past,
as Boas says, in the sense of providing data on migra-
tions and diffusion, but this is Ratzelian history on a
very large scale that is not likely to be relevant to
the people telling the myths. Using the very Boasian

9 9

concept of culture as it has been adapted by modern
American anthropology, we can say that it is precisely
an i7cu/tura/ history that is thus provided. Oral tradition
can, indeed, provide data and insight into remembered
historical events on a human scale, a truly cultural his-
tory (Harkin 1 988). There is, however, a time lag of a
generation or more between the event itself and the
appearance of a myth— as opposed to anecdotal nar-
ratives—about the event. Moreover, as time passes,
the myth becomes more "mythlike," more canonical,
and less anecdotal. After a few generations, the new
myth may be indistinguishable in form from other myths
(Vansina 1985:24).

A methodological problem arises. If researchers are
interested only in collecting "texts," or canonical myths,
they will entirely miss the embryonic myth that speaks
of relatively recent events and changes. Moreover, they
will deny themselves the opportunity to study the pro-
cess of myth-making and its relation to changing cul-
tural contexts. How many of the "idiotic stories" Boas
complained about (as quoted in Stocking 1 968:204)
were such incipient myths, we cannot know. We do
know that stories depicting the arrival of the white
man, the effects of European disease, the fur trade,
and Native warfare were in circulation at the time and
constituted the most important means of understand-
ing and coping with change available to the people of
the Central Coast. The Boasian failure to treat these
materials seriously calls into question the Volksgeist
conception of texts and culture that Boas bequeathed
to modern anthropology.

Kwakiutlism

A third critique of Boas applies especially to his work
with the Heiitsuk and Oowekeeno. Boas' ideas about
ethnic groups and boundaries revolve around a cen-
tral feature of his ethnography, which we may term
"Kwakiutlism." This is problematic in two senses.
First, the term "Kwakiutl" does not properly denote
even the groups that it primarily refers to— the
Kwak'wala-speaking people of Fort Rupert, Alert Bay,

and adjacent mainland and island groups. The Alert
Bay group has adopted the ethnonym Kwakwak-
a'wakw. These various groups do not recognize the
common identity that is implied in the use of the
ethnonym "Kwakiutl." A second, related problem is in
the extension of the term to incorporate all the north-
ern groups speaking North Wakashan languages, in-
cluding the Heiitsuk, Haisia, and Oowekeeno. It is im-
possible now to eliminate the term "Kwakiutl" from
our vocabulary, but I will use it selectively to refer to
the core groups that Boas studied.

The ethnography of the Kwakiutl was Boas' life
work. As such, it is understandable that the Kwakiutl
constituted a fixed point of reference for him and that
he would compare other Northwest Coast groups with
them. It is even unsurprising that he would accept the
Kwakiutl view of the social landscape and their central
place in it. As Buckley (1 989) has cogently argued with
reference to Kroeber's Yurok-centrism, the assumption
that the group an anthropologist studies is in some
way central is borrowed from that group's own eth-
nocentric self-assessment. I would add that this inter-
sects with the ethnographer's egocentrism to create a
powerful concept that is reinforced both objectively
and subjectively. While Kroeber's Yurok became a cul-
tural climax. Boas' Kwakiutl became a cultural empire.

Like any empire— the German, for example— the
Kwakiutl (as an ethnographic concept) could only "ex-
pand" at the expense of their neighbors, the Heiitsuk
and Oowekeeno. This augmentation was made on the
basis of points of ethnographic correspondence. There
are indeed a number of important similarities between
Kwakiutl and Heiitsuk cultures. Most clearly, the Win-
ter Ceremonials in the two cultures share many ele-
ments. In large part, this is because the Kwakiutl bor-
rowed many elements from the Heiitsuk, including the
hamatsa, or cannibal dance (Boas 1 966:258, 402). This
diffusion is attested by oral traditions prominent in the
region, as well as by Boas' own data. However, the
Kwakiutl Winter Ceremonial is somewhat different in
that it combines two distinct traditions into a single

1 00

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

performance: the tsaiqa, or shamanic dances, and the
dieaa, or crest dances (Boas 1 924). The KwakiutI per-
formance loses the dialectical element so obvious in
the Heiltsuk version. This also strongly suggests a north-
to-south direction of diffusion, as Boas himself readily
admits (Boas 1 924).

Despite his awareness that the Heiltsuk, far from
being peripheral to the culturally climactic KwakiutI
(to borrow Kroeber's terminology), were correctly seen
as the originators of much that the KwakiutI had
borrowed, Boas still insisted on referring to them as
"northern KwakiutI" and on viewing them officially as
the Kwakiutl's poor relations. Even when faced with
the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of language,
Boas failed to grant the distinctiveness and "genius" to
the Heiltsuk that he does to other groups such as the
Bella Coola.

The boundary between Kwak'wala and Heiltsuk is
one of language, not dialect. They are both members
of the North Wakashan subfamily, along with
Oowekyala and Haisla. The two languages are approxi-
mately as close as Dutch and German; there are a large
number of cognates, but little mutual intelligibility. It is
a testament to George Hunt's linguistic skills that he
was able to communicate at all with Heiltsuk consult-
ants, even though much of the 1923 fieldwork was
conducted in English (Boas 1 923). The transcription of
Heiltsuk terms reflects a consistent Kwak'wala bias.
While Boas acknowledges these difficulties, he never
admits that they cast doubt on his Kwakiutlist assump-
tions (Boas 1 924). Language, in theory, is not itself suf-
ficient to constitute cultural boundaries, but it is sig-
nificant that nowhere else on the Northwest Coast does
Boas see cultural wholes not coterminous with linguis-
tic boundaries.

In fact the KwakiutI constitute a special case in
which the judgment of cultural boundaries was a priori.
The Heiltsuk certainly do not consider themselves to
be KwakiutI. If Boas had asked them, he would have
learned that they consider themselves to be closely
related to (although not identical with) the Bella Coola,

MICHAEL HARKIN

Oowekeeno, and Haisla. So, if Boas wanted an example
of strong cultural affinity crossing linguistic boundaries,
the Heiltsuk and Bella Coola provided such a case. He
mentions a number of similarities between the Bella
Coola and the "KwakiutI" but never fully examines the
issue of Heiltsuk and Bella Coola affinities, apart from
the Fort Rupert tribes (Boas 1 898b: 1 24-5). Certainly,
there would be much more justification for consider-
ing these two groups to be a "single culture" than for
thinking of the Heiltsuk as KwakiutI.

There is a fundamental epistemological problem
underlying the designation of groups as cultures.
Since Fredrik Barth's important work, modern anthro-
pologists need no longer trouble themselves with find-
ing perfect matches between social groups and cul-
tures, even in tribal societies (Barth 1969). However,
for Boas ethnic boundaries enclosed unique and au-
tonomous lifeworlds, replete with their own modes of
thought, their own "genius," revealed especially in their
myths. This is the relativism of Herder and the German
Counter-Enlightenment (Berlin 1 991 ;37-9). The danger
of strong forms of relativism is, of course, solipsism.
Certainly, the various groups Boas encountered on the
Northwest Coast were very different from European
cultures, and Boas' relativistic assumptions could easily
be justified in this context. However, could each indi-
vidual group be its own self-contained lifeworld, in
opposition to all others? Boas himself was never clear
on this; he seemed to waver between ideas of the
genius of cultural wholes and the diffusion of cultural
traits (Liss 1996:1 71-5; Stocking,ed. 1974:4-6, 1996).

Designating a group as "a culture" was something
that could be done only after the analysis of cultural
elements and their paths of diffusion revealed that this
"accidental accretion" resulted in "an integrated spiri-
tual totality that somehow conditioned the form of its
elements" (Stocking, ed. 1974:5-6). In the face of this
rather paradoxical criterion. Boas seemed to fall back
on two basic strategies: resorting to linguistic bound-
aries as de facto ethnic boundaries, and establishing
something like Barth's "plural societies." The first, more

1 01

common, strategy acknowledged the genius of indi-
vidual groups, while the latter was a useful way of
looking at cultural similarities and borrowings.^

The latter was applied to the case of the KwakiutI
and other North Wakashan groups. Ironically, this
represents potentially the greater theoretical advance-
ment. In his construal of the inhabitants of 200 miles of
British Columbia coast as "KwakiutI," Boas erred in a
number of respects, but the concept of individual
groups speaking different languages yet sharing an
overarching culture is a valuable one. Of course, the
idea is not original but has precedents in the German
geographic tradition, especially in Friedrich Ratzel's
concept of Lebensraum, or "living space" (Smith
1 991 ;2 1 9-33). In fact, this area was a poor candidate,
since a variety of cultural differences in, for example,
descent, marriage, and kinship pertained among the
Wakashan-speaking groups. The problem went beyond
a poor application of the concept; rather, it lay in Boas'
failure to comprehend that this concept of culture was
different from the idea of a distinctive cultural "genius."
To call the Heiltsuk KwakiutI is absurd; to say that
there is a North Wakashan cultural sphere is not absurd
and is, moreover, empirically testable. Although the
results of such testing would be less than reassuring,
the idea could be usefully applied to other groupings
such as the Heiltsuk, Oowekeeno, Bella Coola, and
Haisia or the Citksan, Nishga, and Coast Tsimshian.

It is unfortunate that unreflective "Kwakiutlism"
caused Boas to give short shrift to Central Coast groups.
The paucity of Heiltsuk and Oowekeeno ethnographic
material that we have, especially from the Jesup pe-
riod, is due in large part to the assumption that these
groups were in fact KwakiutI. As the KwakiutI had been
treated extensively in earlier works (e.g.. Boas 1 897),
there was no need to provide another complete eth-
nographic corpus.

Conclusion: The Central Coast as a Limit
Case of Boasian Anthropology

It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that

Boas' concepts and methods of anthropology were
tested and found wanting on the Central Coast. This is
only partly because we have the rich KwakiutI
material with which to compare it. The contradictions
and weaknesses inherent in many of the concepts bor-
rowed directly from the German Romantic and liberal
social scientific traditions, and indeed the paradoxical
manner in which Boas applied some of these ideas
and methods, became more evident in his peripheral
work. Boas as the ethnographer of the KwakiutI was
guided in large part by praxis— by his pragmatic asso-
ciation with the KwakiutI— although this dimension was
systematically suppressed in his published work. In pe-
ripheral regions, such connections were lacking, and
he was forced to fall back on "first principles," which
included the idea of objective science, the privileged
place of texts, the autonomy of cultural wholes, and
the idea of culture as a mental phenomenon, all bor-
rowed directly, and with little change, from their Ger-
man sources.

German social theories of the middle to late 1 9th
century were constructed within a specific political
context, against the background of two broad issues:
the Counter-Enlightenment revolt against French uni-
versalism, and the unification of Germany, with the at-
tendant problems of minority populations, especially
Poles and Jews. Boas imported these theories into the
new world of American anthropology, in many cases
with relatively little self-awareness of the fact. The po-
litical context of North American internal colonialism
was much different from that of post-1 848 Germany.
It is only logical that tools honed in the study of
Thuringian peasants would be found less than optimal
for the study of Northwest Coast Indians.

Boas' strengths as an ethnographer, and especially
a linguist, which were unparalleled in anthropology at
least until Malinowski, were somewhat undermined in
the case of the Central Coast by these theoretical weak-
nesses and contradictions. It would be presentism of
the worst sort to find fault with Boas for not operating
with the full complement of modern anthropological

1 02

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

concepts and methods, some of which he helped to
develop. This, however, does not preclude a critical
reading of his work, or a comparison of his work on
one group with that on another. By any reasonable
standards, Boasian ethnography on the Central North-
west Coast will be found wanting, instructive as the
failure may be.

Notes

1 . Farrand later became a university adminis-
trator and was president of the University of Colo-
rado and of Cornell University.

2. In calling the Heiltsuk embrace of
Methodism a "revitalization movement," I am ex-
tending the sense in which the term is generally
used. Several elements, however, suggest the
usage: the importance of Native "prophets" and
preachers, the centrality of ideas of disease, health,
and purity in both missionary and Native discourse,
and, of course, the background of sickness, cul-
tural dislocation, and rapidly changing morals
against which the movement appeared. By the
standards of such things, this movement was quite
successful.

3. Boas' designation of the Bella Coola as a
Volk is especially interesting in view of the fact
that he did not ascribe such status to the Heiltsuk.

4. On the rhetoric of missionary writings, see
Harkin (1993:7-10).

5. Pragmatically, the shift in the nature of
Boas' Northwest Coast publications reflects his
attenuated engagement with the Northwest
Coast— his personal distancing— and his practice
of publishing George Hunt's materials with little
editorial change.

6. This belief in unmediated perception of
truth, with its roots in Reformation theology, is
characteristic of German Romantic philosophy,
especially that of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (see Ber-
lin 1991 :190-1).

7. Boas provides a single systematic, al-
though extremely brief, description of Heiltsuk
social organization (Boas 1924:329-32). The un-
published field notes from Boas' and Hunt's sec-
ond, post-Jesup, visit to Bella Bella (Boas 1923)
are a rich source of data on social structure (al-
though not on social change).

8. This opposition between culture and re-

gion between Volk and nation— was precisely
the central political problem in the Germany of
Boas' youth (see Smith 1991:94-5).

References
Barth, Fredrik

1 969 Introduction. In Ethnic Croups and Boundaries:
Tine Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Fredrik
Barth, ed. Pp. 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown.

Barthes, Roland

1 986 The Rustle of Language. Richard Howard, trans.

New York: Hill and Wang.
Berlin, Isaiah

1 991 The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in

the History of Ideas. New York: Knopf.
Berman, Judith

1 996 "The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-
self: Boas, George Hunt, and the Methods of Eth-
nography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Es-
says on Boasian Ethnography and the Cerman An-
thropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed.
Pp. 215-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.

2000 Raven and Sunbeam, Paper and Pencil: George
Hunt of Fort Rupert, British Columbia. Paper presented
at conference, "Ethnologie de la Cote Northwest:
Bilans et perspectives," College de France, Paris, June
21-23.

Boas, Franz

1 896 The Growth of Indian Mythologies. Journal of
American Folk Lore 9:1 -1 1 . Reprinted in Boas 1 940.

1 897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-
ies of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Obser-
vations and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt.
Report of the United States National Museum for
1895. Pp. 31 1-738. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.

1 898a The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 1 , pp.1 -1 2. Mem-
oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 2.
New York. Reprinted in Stocking, ed. 1974.

1 898b The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 2, pp. 25-
127. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, 2. New York.

1 91 6 Tsimshian Mythology: Based on Texts Recorded
by Henry W. Teit. Annual Report for the Years 1 909-
1910, #32. Pp. 29-1037. Washington, DC: Govern-
ment Printing Office.

1923 Bella Bella notes. Boas Collection 372, Reel 1.
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

1 924 The Social Organization of the Tribes of the
North Pacific Coast American Anthropologist 26:323-
32. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1928 Bella Bella Texts. Columbia University

MICHAEL HARKIN

1 03

Contributions to Anthropology, 5. New York: Co-
lumbia University Press.

1 932 Bella Bella Tales. Memoirs of the American Foli<
Lore Society, 52. New York.

1 940 Race, Language, and Culture. New York: Free
Press.

1966 KwakiutI Ethnography. Helen Codere, ed. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Boyd, Robert T.

1990 Demographic History, 1774-1874. Handbook
of North American Indians, vol. 7. Northwest Coast.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Buckley, Thomas

1 989 Kroeber's Theory of Culture Areas and the Eth-
nology of Northwestern California. Anthropological
Quarterly 620)^ 5-24.

1996 'The Little History of Pitiful Events": The Episte-
mological and Moral Contexts of Kroeber's Califor-
nian Ethnology. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic:
Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German
Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr.,
ed. Pp. 257-97. History of Anthropology, 8. Madi-
son: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bunzl, Matti

Darnell, Regna

1 992 The Boasian Text Tradition and the History of
Anthropology. Culture 17(l):39-48.

Fabian, Johannes

1 983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes

Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.
Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila
Williamson

1 988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-
aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902).
American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

Goffman, Erving

1 974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization
of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Harkin, Michael

1 988 History, Narrative, and Temporality: Examples
from the Northwest Coast. ff/7/10/7/storK 3 5:99-1 30.

1 993 Power and Progress: The Evangelic Dialogue
among the Heiltsuk. EthnohistoryAQA-3>3.

1 994 Contested Bodies: Affliction and Power in Heiltsuk
Culture and History. American Ethnologist 2] -.586-
605.

1 997 The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and History

on the Northwest Coast. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Jacknis, Ira

1985 Franz Boas and Exhibits: On the Limitations of
the Museum Method of Anthropology. In Objects
and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Cul-
ture. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 75-1 1 1 . History
of Anthropology, 3. Madison: University of Wiscon-
sin Press.

1 996 The Ethnographic Object and the Object of Eth-
nology in the Early Career of Franz Boas. In Volksgeist
as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnogra-
phy and the German Anthropological Tradition. G.
W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 185-21 4. History of Anthro-
pology, 8. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Krupat, Arnold

1 990 Irony in Anthropology: The Work of Franz Boas.

In Modernist Anthropology: From Field work to Text.

Marc Magnaro, ed. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.
Kuper, Adam

1 988 The Invention of Primitive Society: Transforma-
tions of an Illusion. London: Routledge.
Levi-Strauss, Claude

1 966 Anthropology: Its Achievement and Its Future.

Current Anthropology 7:1 24-7.
1 976 Structural Anthropology, vol. 2. Monique Layton,

trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1 985 The View from Afar. Joachim Neugroschel and

Phoebe Hoss, trans. New York: Basic Books.
Liss, Julia E.

1996 German Culture and German Science in the
Bildung of Franz Boas. In Volksgeist as Method and
Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the Ger-
man Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stocking,
Jr., ed. Pp. 1 55-84. History of Anthropology, 8. Madi-
son: University of Wisconsin Press.

Mcllwraith, Thomas F.

1 948 The Bella Coola Indians, vol. 1 . Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press.
Mooney, James

1 896 The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Out-
break of 1 890. Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bu-
reau of American Ethnology. Pp. 301-97. Washing-
ton, DC: Government Printing Office.

Smith, Woodruff D.

1 991 Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany
1840-1920. New York: Oxford University Press.

Steiner, George

1 992 After Babel: Aspects of Language and Transla-
tion. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1 968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the His-
tory of Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.

1 04

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

1 987 Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press.

1 992 The Ethnographer's Magic and Other Essays in
the History of Anthropology. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1974 The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-
191 1: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

1 996 Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian
Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tra-
dition. History of Anthropology, 8. IVIadison: Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Press.

Tate, Caroline

1883 Correspondence. Missionary Outlook 3.]]] .
Toronto: United Church of Canada Archives.

Tepper, Leslie H., ed.

1991 The Bella Coola Valley: Harlan I. Smith's Field-
work Photographs, 1 920- 1 924. Canadian Ethnology
Service Mercury Series Paper 123. Ottawa: National
Museum of Civilization.

Todorov, Tzvetan

1 988 Knowledge in Social Anthropology: Distancing

and Universality. Anthropology Today A{2):2-S.
Vansina, Jan

1 985 Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press.
Ziolkowski, Theodore

1 990 German Romanticism and Its Institutions.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

MICHAEL HARKIN

1 05

25/ Kwazi'nik, a NIaka'pamux woman from Spences Bridge, British Columbia, 1897. Harlan I. Smith,
photographer (AMNH 1 1661)

1 06

wazi^ni

|<^wazi niK 5 i Lj<

Vision and ^tjmbo! in ^oasian j^e presentation

BARBARA MATHE

AND THOMAS R. MILLER

The photographer crouches behind a tripod, head un-
der a black cloth. Emerging, he steps forward and closes
the lens, sets the shutter, loads the film holder into the
back of the camera, and pulls the slide away from the
plate. When all is ready, the photographer stands next
to the apparatus, reviews the scene, makes any ad-
justments, and issues last-minute instructions. Finally,
the photographer presses a cable or pulls a string, the
shutter is released, and the picture is taken. In the in-
stant of exposure, the shutter opens, and the mechani-
cal eye meets the gaze of the subject. What the cam-
era records is the subject watching this photographic
performance (Fig. 25).

Now imagine the scene through the eye of the
subject, a NIaka'pamux woman named Kwazi'nik. The
reflected image of Harlan Smith the photographer—
and his tripod can be seen in her eyes (Fig. 26).

Collecting Images

The photo was taken in 1 897 at Spences Bridge, Brit-
ish Columbia, as part of Franz Boas' continuing col-
laboration with the British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science (BAAS) in describing the physical and
human geography of western Canada. That year Boas
combined his anthropometric work for the BAAS with
a new and ambitious project for the American Mu-
seum of Natural History (AMNH)^the Jesup North Pa-
cific Expedition.

Between 1 897 and 1 902 the expedition produced
some 3,400 photographs.' The pictures were sent from
the field to Boas in New York, where they became part

of the AMNH collections from North Asia and the Pa-
cific Northwest of North America. The visual informa-
tion gathered by the expedition's photographers in-
cludes scenes of daily and ritual activity, collected ar-
tifacts shown in use, architecture, landscapes, and
people wearing traditional costumes. The largest group
of images consists of "physical types," photographs in
which individuals were pictured from various angles
(usually front, side, and three-quarter views; see Fig.
27). These portraits were intended to complement
physiognomic measurements, casts, and bones and
help establish an anatomical databank of "racial" char-
acteristics. Boas' instructions emphasized photogra-
phy among the varied field activities. He directed
Waldemar Jochelson, leader of the Siberian side of the
expedition, to stress physical anthropology, charging
him with "special efforts to obtain a good collection
of anthropological photographs and plaster casts"
(Boas to Jochelson, 26 March 1900, AMNH).^

Morris K. jesup, president of the AMNH and the
expedition's patron and namesake, wanted a sweep-
ing, illustrious scientific achievement for the museum.
The search for the first Americans' racial origins had
caught the public imagination. In a quest to prove the
hypothesis that the first Americans had migrated across
the Bering Strait from northern Asia, Jesup found a
project of grandeur and scope to suit his Gilded-Age
ambitions. As a scientist, Franz Boas was more inter-
ested in reconstructing the histories of tribes to dem-
onstrate relationships and historical contacts between
North Asians and American Indians.

1 07

Boas and others were convinced that colonial
incursions into the indigenous societies of the North
Pacific had brought traditional cultures to the verge of
disappearance. Boas' fieldworkers made a conscious
effort to record or reconstruct traditions as remem-
bered from the past. The combination of artifacts, texts,
photographs, wax-cylinder recordings, casts, and physi-
cal measurements was intended to form an encyclo-
pedic body of data. The collections were chosen to
illustrate as many facets of traditional peoples and
cultures as possible. As a tool linking the expedition
and exhibition phases of the museum enterprise, pho-
tography was a valuable means of documentation and
re-creation.

Boas' primary goal was accumulation— the collec-
tion of racial, cultural, and linguistic information of all
types on a massive scale. This project of salvage
ethnology was a response to the social conditions of
modernity that threatened traditions. Although remov-
ing cultural artifacts from their contexts may have
hastened the onslaught of change, science could at
least record and preserve the past even as it was
being effaced (Cruber 1 970). The urgent efforts of the
photographers to preserve images of a vanishing past
convey the anxiety of salvage anthropology, frame by
frame. As Smith wrote to Boas from Eburne,

I got the explanation of the house posts I
bought as well as they could give them. The
large one is interesting the man's figure they
say is simply an ornament or a carving made to
be a carving and had no meaning. . . . They
don't seem to know as much of the old times
as we wish they did. (1 7 May 1 898, AMNH)

The museum photographers composed and col-
lected scenes whose corresponding realities they did
not expect to survive. Embedded within these ideal-
ized, fragmented, metonymic images of culture were
visual symbols of native tradition, heritage, and iden-
tity. These distinctive features were chosen to repre-
sent cultures not only as they then existed but in an
imagined and reconstructed "ethnographic present,"
situated in the past and staged for the future.

Dictated texts, sound recordings, photographs, and
head casts— all objects that in some sense were cre-
ated by and for science— can be thought of as docu-
mentary collections which augment and explain col-
lections of "found" objects (a category that includes
most collected art and artifacts, as well as human
bones). Although both types of collection depended
on a complex negotiation of collaboration and coer-
cion between anthropologists and Native subjects in
the colonial-era encounters of the late 1 9th and early
20th centuries, under certain circumstances documen-
tary ethnographic collections might have allowed par-
ticipating Native artists and informants a more active
voice in deciding how they wished their cultures to be
represented. Today, when North Pacific peoples and
their cultures have not only survived but are growing
more numerous and stronger in the expression of their
unique identities, both documentary and "found" col-
lections constitute a powerful and potentially con-
tested resource for the reanimation and reinvention
of traditions.

The jesup Photographers
Boas was an enthusiastic proponent of modern tech-
nology in fieldwork, advocating the use of recording
devices such as the camera and the phonograph to
document cultural traditions. He had studied photog-
raphy as a university student in Germany and, from his
earliest solo trip to Baffin Island, had made use of pho-
tographic equipment. Boas himself spent only about
four months in the field on the Jesup Expedition, during
the summers of 1 897 and 1 900, and no photographs
are attributed to him personally. His ethos, however,
pervaded the entire enterprise.

Harlan Smith, then a young employee at the AMNH,
was the principal photographer on the North Ameri-
can side, producing more than 500 images on the
Northwest Coast. ^ He was already familiar with Boas'
methodology and ideas on anthropological represen-
tation, having worked with Boas and George Hunt
(Boas' principal collaborator) at the 1 893 Chicago

1 08

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

World's Columbian Exposition. In correspondence from
the field, Smith referred to Boas' 1 894 work with West
Coast photographer O. C. Hastings as a precedent."
Hastings was also hired for the Jesup Expedition in 1898
and worked as an assistant to Smith in Fort Rupert.
Gerard Fowke took archaeological pictures in Victoria,
British Columbia, in 1 898, as well as a small number of
images in Siberia and the Russian Far East. Ethnologist
Roland Dixon photographed Quinault and Quileute in-
dividuals as part of his fieldwork for the expedition in
Washington State in 1898.

Two individuals on the American side of the expe-
dition, George Hunt and James Teit, proved invaluable
because of their close ties to Native communities; their
influence on the photographic work of the Jesup Expe-
dition was immeasurable. Hunt, the son of a British
father and a Tlingit mother, was raised in the KwakiutI
[Kwakwaka'wakw] community of Fort Rupert, British
Columbia. He worked closely with other members of
the expedition team, making their encounters with
Indians more relaxed and perhaps more revealing.
James Alexander Teit, an immigrant from the Shetland
Islands who lived in Spences Bridge, was married to a
NIaka'pamux woman, Susanna Lucy Antko. Kwazi'nik,
who posed for Figure 25, was Antko's sister (Wendy
Wickwire, personal communication). Teit's insider sta-
tus allowed him to collect information not easily avail-
able to others (see Thom, this volume). Although Teit
took up the camera only after the Jesup Expedition
years. Hunt started sending photographs back to Boas
in New York as early as 1 901 , and he later went on to
produce an important body of pictures (Cannizzo 1 983;
Jacknis 1985).

In Siberia, most of the photographs were taken by
Waldemar Bogoras, Waldemar Jochelson, and Dina
Jochelson-Brodsky. [Alexander Axelrod, the Siberian
team assistant, probably also took several photo-
graphs—ed.] Jochelson wrote to Boas in 1901 about
his pictures of Koryak and Tungus, "Half of my photo-
graphic plates are of anthropological subjects"— i.e.,
physical types. Jochelson-Brodsky, who interrupted her

medical training under Rudolf Martin in Zurich to ac-
company her husband on the expedition, took the an-
thropometric measurements and assumed responsi-
bility for much of the photography as well. Jochelson
wrote to Boas in the summer of 1 901 , "Mrs. Jochelson
has developed the plates and done the other photo-
graphic work and acts now as my secretary" (3 Au-
gust [22 July, old style] 1901, AMNH).

Dina Jochelson-Brodsky measured the faces of some
720 Koryak, Tungus, and Sakha [Yakut] men, women,
and children. In addition, she produced anatomical
measurements of more than 1 20 Tungus, Sakha, and
Yukagir women's bodies. Together with her photo-
graphs and plaster casts of heads, these data formed
the basis of her dissertation in medical anthropology,
which she eventually completed in Zurich. During the
years of the Jesup Expedition, epidemics caused wide-
spread population decline among the Koryak, Chukchi,
and Yukagir, so opportunities to measure and photo-
graph individuals were limited.^ In a 1 907 Journal ar-
ticle based on her dissertation research, Jochelson-
Brodsky reported that conditions had severely con-
strained her work:

Unfortunately, I was not able to make special
women's measurements of the Koryak. We
lived with the Gizhiga Koryak around Primorski
region the entire winter of 1 900-1 901 .... My
husband, myself, the interpreter and other
assistants worked in our tight, small canvas
tent, heated by a little iron stove. Faced with
such arrangements it turned out I was not able
to produce special measurements of Koryak
women. (Jochelson-Brodsky 1 907)

On both sides of the North Pacific, additional pic-
tures were commissioned from local professional pho-
tographers. In the Amur River region of the Russian Far
East, Jesup anthropologist Berthold Laufer's dismal at-
tempt at photography prompted Boas to urge him to
hire a professional photographer instead (Kendall 1 988).

Boxes of Light

The elaborate performance of the view camera
formally staged and framed the relation between

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

1 09

anthropologist and subject, visually marking the in-
herent power imbalance that was at other times muted
by friendly and casual exchange. The manipulation of
scenes before the lens was a collaborative act of the-
ater, a performance engaged in by foreign guest and
Native host with varying degrees of coercion and co-
operation. The extent to which the composition of
pictures was designed and controlled by the photog-
raphers and their subjects depended on factors that
included the familiarity and relative status of photog-
rapher and subject, the didactic purpose of the pho-
tograph, lighting and weather conditions, and the tech-
nical limitations of the apparatus. The project of sal-
vage anthropology itself was often one of complicity
between subject and collector to dramatize tradition.
To represent a culture to the public, an image had to
be reconstructed in the museum; frequently, this im-
age was in turn based on a scene deliberately com-
posed in the field.

Turn-of-the-century technology imposed strict limi-
tations on field photographers. Correct exposure gen-
erally required subjects to hold still in well-lit and care-
fully arranged poses. The slow film of the period and
the large format of the view camera required either
strong light or slow shutter speeds for good expo-
sure. A tripod was almost always needed. Most of the
photographs were taken outdoors. Although hand-held
Kodak box cameras had been in use since the early
1 890s, they were mostly relegated to amateur use.
Instead, large view cameras with glass-plate negatives,
capable of fine detail, were chosen for the expedition.

While basic provisions like food and clothing could
be obtained locally, specialized supplies and technical
equipment had to be requested by post, shipped from
New York to Vancouver or Vladivostok, cleared through
international customs, stored in repositories, picked
up, and finally transported to field sites. Some ship-
ments never arrived, and others languished in ware-
houses for months. Writing to museum clerk John Winser
from Victoria in July 1897, Harlan Smith pleaded em-
phatically:

Please trace at once the phonograph cylin-
ders and the photographic plates sent here
to Dr. Boas from the museum in May. They
are not here and as a consequence I have to
pay big British Columbia prices for photo
plates and to do without the phonograph
cylinders. I have worked every means to get
them from early morning. I have been to
every depot, customs and express. This loss
is a very serious matter to this year's work. I
am bending every effort to try to secure
them from some where before my steamer
sails. (Smith to Winser, 30 July 1 897, AMNH)

Almost a year later, during the second Jesup Expedi-
tion field season. Smith wrote to Boas from Fort Rupert:

At last the photographic plates, sent out
here in 1897, have reached me and we have
used some of them but find all the pictures
taken with them failed. It is too bad they will
be a dead loss on our hands. I will try one
from each box and so try to use them. If one
is good we will try others in the box. They
are all speckled. I suppose caused by age or
moisture while lying a year at Victoria. (Smith
to Boas, 22 June 1 898, AMNH)

The temporal and spatial constraints of photo-
graphy's fixed vantage point and moment of expo-
sure could be partially compensated for by picturing a
subject from several angles in succession. In photo-
graphs, sequences could string moments together, en-
hancing time, and panoramas could extend the space
of the camera, overcoming the boundaries of the pic-
ture frame. These techniques were used to broaden
the parameters of the medium, to capture landscapes
and views that could not be contained within the con-
fines of an individual photograph (Figs. 28, 29). The
conventional front, side, and three-quarter views of
1 9th-century physical-type photography provide a clas-
sic illustration of this approach.

Perceived and Represented "Types"
The search for "types" in descriptions of people was
the primary scientific mode of assessing racial and eth-
nic characteristics in the late 1 9th century. Amassing
physical anthropology data in the form of skeletal ma-
terial, casts, measurements, and photographs provided

1 1 0

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

crucial evidence for the racial component of Boas' tri-
adic model of race, language, and culture. Yet much of
the physical anthropology data collected on the Jesup
Expedition, including Boas' voluminous anthropomet-
ric records, remained unanalyzed for more than 80 years
(see Ousley and Jantz, this volume).^

Early in his career. Boas had been concerned with
the effect of the observer's perceptual bias on typol-
ogy and classification. His physics thesis at the Univer-
sity of Kiel, completed in the early 1 880s, dealt with
the role of perception in determining variations in the
color of seawater. Ranging widely across the German
division of scholarly disciplines in his studies, the young
Boas evinced a keen interest in methodology, initially
proposing a thesis on the problem of random errors in
scientific investigations. When this topic was rejected
by the faculty at Kiel, he took up the assigned prob-
lem of seawater with little enthusiasm, encountering
great difficulty in accurately recreating minute natural
differences under laboratory conditions (Cole 1 999:38-
62). In a sense, his efforts showed that scientific errors
were not merely random but were often induced by
the artificial character of the scientific setting or by
unrefined laboratory methods of reconstructing real-
world conditions. The notion that the bias of the ob-
server was among the most prominent and determin-
istic of these effects would later profoundly influence
Boas' construction of cultural relativism in his seminal
1 889 essay "On Alternating Sounds."

A strikingly similar orientation is reflected in the
discussion of the distribution of colored sticks in his
1 922 article "The Measurement of Differences between
Variable Quantities." In the human sciences, however,
the basic framework of classifying data into morpho-
logical types was immensely complicated by the par-
ticular historical and environmental variables of human
migration and intercourse. From the time Boas resigned
from the ANMH in 1905 until his death in 1942, he
gradually tempered his insistence on the quest for
universals of human behavior and fixed racial catego-
ries in favor of a historical method that placed local

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

conditions above universal or evolutionary stages of
social development (Stocking 1 974:1 2-1 5). In contrast
to the magisterial certainties of structural functional-
ism and the rigid hierarchies of social-evolutionary
theory, Boasian anthropology developed in a more re-
flexive mode. As with seawater or colored sticks, the
perception and classification of human subjects de-
pended on the point of view of the observer. This
counter-social evolutionary position was manifest not
only in Boas' physical anthropology but also in his study
of representation in cultural artifacts.

For Boas, mere visual qualities could be danger-
ously misleading if taken as guides to understanding
the meaning of cultural objects or physical evidence.
When comparing objects of similar form collected from
neighboring tribes, he repeatedly cautioned that their
true significance could be found only in the context of
their originating cultures. Usage and lore, not external
similarities of form, were the keys to comparison and
classification. The method of museum display he
developed between 1886 and 1905 depended on
narrative scenes depicting the life of particular cultural
groups more than on grouping visually similar artifacts
from disparate regions together in exhibit cases. ^

Boas' cautious analytical attitude toward the ex-
traction of meaning from form was central to his vision
of museum display. He concluded a 1904 brochure
for AMNH visitors by noting that objects with the same
form carried different meanings for different Indian
tribes. "This seems to indicate," he wrote, "that the
interpretation may also be adapted to the design, or .
. . an idea has been 'read into' the design" (Boas [1 904]
1 995:1 87). A comparable process of "reading in" takes
place when looking at archival photographs. Just as
an object's meaning depends on its cultural context, a
photograph's meaning depends on its original setting,
its subsequent place in a museum or a publication,
any accompanying text, and the biases of a viewer's
own culture and historical worldview.

Boas retained a basic distrust of the photograph,
with its single point of view, lack of perspective,

1 1 1

narrow bracketing of space, and freezing of a single
instant. He considered the scientific value of physical-
type images to be limited by the perspectival distor-
tion inherent in two-dimensional representation Gacknis
1 984). Characteristically, his solution to the limits of
graphic representation was to gather as much evidence
of as many types as possible. The visual medium was
valued for the degree of completeness it could add to
a body of textual or numerical information and to
associated collections, as well as for guidance in con-
structing museum exhibits.

Photographic images were to be a supplementary
form of data. The huge corpus of physical-type photo-
graphs, for example, was intended primarily to illus-
trate cranial and body measurements taken in the field.
Skulls and bones were determined to be the most
valuable evidence, followed by casts, measurements,
verbal descriptions, and photographs. Physiognomic
resemblances as shown by the camera were surface
appearances which, though not analogous to simple
racial stereotypes, were nonetheless data to be ap-
plied to racial formulae in determining the physical types
of individuals and populations. But in human society,
classification had to account for highly complex histo-
ries over vast areas of distribution. Although they origi-
nated in a search for typology. Boas' considerations of
race moved him instead toward historical particular-
ism. His insistence on local differentiation stood in con-
trast to the prevailing evolutionary models of culture.
Boas believed that truly scientific explanations could
only be based on an immense corpus of detailed eth-
nographic data. One of the chief aims of the Boasian
method during the Jesup Expedition period was, there-
fore, the extrapolation of general laws, which he still
thought possible, from a preponderance of facts.

Exchanging Vision

Photography is in some regards ill suited to the project
of idealizing types for classification. Disinterestedly
recording every visible quirk and flaw, the camera tends
to favor the details of specific corporeal realities over

idealized conceptual forms. This is why medical and
biological journals, for purposes of idealization and
classification, often prefer drawings instead of photo-
graphs as anatomical illustrations. Whereas an artist
can depict a model of an organism in diagram or cross-
section, showing all the features deemed distinctive
and characteristic of its species, the camera can only
depict the unique individual specimen.

The statistical profile of North Pacific peoples sought
by the anthropologists was to be based on a com-
posite of individual features.^ In a circular establishing
its guidelines for photographic portraits, the Ethno-
logical Survey of Canada of the BAAS, Boas' employer
on the Northwest Coast, instructed its investigators
that

facial characteristics are conveniently recorded
by means of photographs" taken in the follow-
ing ways:

(a) A few portraits of such persons as may, in
the opinion of the person who sends them,
best convey the peculiar characteristics of the
race . . .

(b) At least twelve portraits of the left side of
the face of as many different adults of the same
sex. ... If the incidence of the light be not the
same in all cases they cannot be used to make
composite portraits. . . . The distance of the
sitter from the camera can be adjusted with
much precision by fixing a looking glass in the
wail (say five feet from his chair), so that he
can see the reflection of his face in it.'

The exchange of vision between photographer and
subject mediates the act of photography.

The image of Harlan Smith and his camera reflected
in Kwazi'nik's eyes is a visible manifestation of what
takes place every time a subject looks at a camera.
The seeing eye and the camera lens reflect one an-
other; each is mirrored in the other (Fig. 25).

That exchange of vision in which another's point
of view gets captured is illustrated metaphorically
in a Thompson River tale, "Coyote Juggles with His
Eyes," collected by James Teit. The mythic trickster-
hero Coyote loses his sight only to steal someone
else's:'"

1 1 2

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

26/ The photographer's figure (Harlan I. Smith), his camera, and tripod reflected in the eye of Kwazi'nik
(from AMNH 1 1661)

1 1 3

114

27/ Typical "physical type" photographs from
the Jesup Expedition databank of physical (ra-
cial) characteristics (front, side, and three-quar-
ter views). F. Nehulin, young Chuvan
(Chuvantzy) woman from Markovo (?), 1 900
(AMNH 1409, 1410, 141 1).

1 1 5

- ^

28/ First of a two-photo sequence photographs depicting the Kwakwaka'wakw (KwakiutI) potlatch at Fort
Rupert, British Columbia. Harlan I. Smith, phtographer, 1 897 (AMNH 42968)

116

29/ Second photo of the same potlatch ceremony at Fort Rupert. Blankets piled on beach, with a speaker in
the middle (AMNH 42967)

1 1 7

30/ Sketches with facial paintings of the Niaka'pamux (Thompson) Indians. Reprinted from Bureau of Ameri-
can Ethnology, 45'^ Annual Report, 1 930 (Plate 7)

32/ Yukagir shaman in full costume, with his sha-

man drum and drumstick, photographed for a man-
nequin-style museum display (AMNH 1 835)

33/ Yukagir shaman in full costume photographed for
a mannequin-style museum display (AMNH 1 834)

1 1 9

34/ A grave marker in the form of a carved wooden "copper," Fort Rupert, British Columbia. Harlan I. Smith,
photographer,! 897 (AMNH 41 1 809)

1 20

35/ Native woman in traditional deerskin clothing (probably borrowed for photo session), with a little
girl in a gingham dress. Harlan I. Smith, photographer,! 897 (AMNH 1 1 682)

121

37/ Emma Simon, a NIaka'pamux (Thompson Indian) woman posing for a staged life-
scene photo to illustrate traditional practice of deer-hide tanning (AMNH 42930).

39/ Miniature diorama of the IVIaritime Koryak winter settlement, American IVluseum, Hall of Asian Peoples
(AMNH 1 8237). The actions and poses of the human figurines are precisely based on Jochelson's photographs
from the Jesup Expedition, including the the two facing photographs.

1 24

40/ Koryak hunters dragging killed white whale on sledge, springl 901 (AMNH 1 423)

4 1 / Koryak men posing for a "dog-offering"' ceremony (AMNH 1519)

125

A Z 1 •\ S

42/ Chief Petit Louis (HIi Kleh Kan) of the Kamloops Indian Band, Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation, holding a
child (AMNH 42745).

1 26

43/ Haida painting, possibly by Charles Edenshaw, representing a bear. The painting
illustrates the method of split representation whereby different viewpoints of an animal,
front and sides, are shown on a single plane. It also shows how the parts of the animal
closely identified with a bear, the ears and claws, are used as a symbolic representation
of the creature. Published in: Franz Boas. The Decorative Art of the Indians of the North
Pacific Cofl5t.l897,p.l27(AMNH24537)

44/ Yupik (Siberian Eskimo) man from the village of Ungazik (Indian Point, Chaplino) Chukotka, Siberia, 1 901
(AMNH 2438, 2437, 2439)

1 28

Continuing his travels, he came to a place
where he saw Blue-Grouse throwing his eyes
up in the air and catching them. Coyote said
to himself, "I can also perform that feat," so
he pulled out his eyes and threw them up in
the air; but Raven caught them and flew
away with them, so Coyote was left without
eyes and unable to see. He went groping
about, and, coming to a patch of kinnikinnik
or bearberries, he selected two of the berries,
and put them in his eye-sockets as substi-
tutes for eyes. He was then able to see a
little, but only very dimly. Continuing on his
journey, he came to the outskirts of a village
where some boys were playing. One boy
who was near him called him "red-eyes" and
other sarcastic names. Coyote said, "Al-
though my eyes are red, I can see as well as
you can. I can see the Pleiades (nxa'us)." The
boy laughed and said, "How can you see the
Pleiades? It is just noon. I know now for a
certainty that you cannot see with your red
eyes." Then Coyote seized the boy, and,
taking out his eyes, put them in his own
head, and, putting his bearberry eyes in the
boy's head, he turned him into a bird called
tceia'uin. (Teit 1912:212)

In the face paintings reproduced on templates in
the jesup archives and publications, the eyes are
explained as a site of symbolic visualizations and
extraordinary powers of vision. Figure 30 shows a
Thompson Indian motif whose meaning was not
certain but, according to Teit,

is said to be connected with sight or the
expectation to see. Some say the circles
represent the eyes and the lines are symbolic
of woodworms or strength, and the whole
may be a prayer for strength of the eyes. The
person using this painting may have wanted
his powers of vision increased so that he
might see supernatural beings, or he may
have wanted sore eyes to be made well.
(Teit 1930:424-5)"

Boas collected a large number of face-painting de-
signs from the great Haida artist Charles Edenshaw,
and three-dimensional miniature cast representations
of George Hunt's face serve as templates for a large
collection of face-painting motifs. In his Facial Paint-
ings of the Indians of Northern British Columbia^ 898),
Boas used face paintings to exemplify the problem of
mapping designs not only from three dimensions to

two but also simultaneously from a variegated and
changing surface to a static representation. In this
essay Boas at once classifies the designs from most
realistic to most abstract and describes the Indians'

peculiar method of adapting the animal form
to the decorative field. There is no endeavor
to represent the form by means of perspec-
tive, but the attempt is made to adapt the
form as nearly as possible to the decorative
field by means of distortion and dissection. .
. . if I could obtain a series of representations
on very difficult surfaces, the principles of
conventionalism would appear most clearly.
No surface seems to be more difficult to
treat and to adapt to animal forms, than the
human face. For this reason I resolved to
make a collection of facial paintings such as
are used by the Indians when adorning
themselves for festive dances. (Boasl 898:1 3)

Visualizing Cultures

Like museum collecting and anthropology itself, pho-
tography both records and represents. As a medium
of record, photography documents the visual, produc-
ing a permanent image of a subject's physical charac-
teristics from a fixed and framed optical perspective
at a single instant. Within the constraints of the me-
dium, photography can accurately depict a person's
face, an environmental setting, or the detailed surface
of an object. But as a representation, the meaning of a
photograph is mutable and depends on many factors.
The context from which the image sprang fades away,
while the context in which it will be viewed changes
continuously over time. The anthropological photo-
graph presents a deliberate image of the traditional
past, recording a unique moment of contact between
science and its object. Subsequent interpretations are
attempts to read meaning and context back into these
isolated visual fragments.

The jochelsons, while acquiring shamans' coats,
hats, and drums in Siberia, photographed some of the
costumes being worn in the field. The poses suggest
that the pictures were meant to serve as models for
museum mannequins on which the costumes would
be displayed. One effect of such comprehensive

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

1 29

collecting of objects was the self-fulfillment of the
anthropological prophecy that theethnographers were
witnessing a last performance, since by acquiring
these artifacts they were removing them from the
sphere of the living culture. Meant to demonstrate
processes for purposes of study and display, these
photographs also documented the transfer of the sha-
mans' ritual garb to the museum. The photographic
ritual marked the desacralization of powerful shamanic
vestments as they were transformed into inert museum
objects (Figs. 31-33).

In collecting artifacts and creating ethnographic
images for the museum, the members of the Jesup Ex-
pedition sought out symbols of traditional culture that
could represent the past in idealized museum displays.
Individual signs of colonialism and acculturation were
frequently left out of the collection. Harlan Smith wrote
to Boas from Eburne, British Columbia:

I tried to get the big wooden drum cheaper. .
. . They had two but one showed white
contact. It would have interested me as
showing contact but I thought Museum
would prefer the old style and would not
care to see how white men's pipes and hats
are drawn by Indian artists. . . . (Smith to
Boas, 17 May 1898, AMNH)

Although the anthropologists often strove to avoid
documenting obvious signs of modernity, they none-
theless collected many signs of intermingling cultures.
Boasian techniques of dramatizing precolonial tradi-
tions were more difficult and less relevant in settle-
ments where Russians, English, Canadians, or Ameri-
cans had lived for centuries than they were among
nomadic hunter-gatherers on the tundra (Laurel Kendall,
personal communication, 1996). Some photographs,
like a wooden "copper" grave marker in British Colum-
bia, clearly show a combination of traditional culture
and western influence (Fig. 34). In Siberia, many signs
of Russian influence are visible in photographs taken in
and around Yakutsk, imperial headquarters for the col-
lection of /flsfl/c (fur tribute) for more than 250 years.
In heavily Russianized areas such as Yakutsk and

1 30

Markovo, Bogoras and Jochelson focused on accul-
turation and collected many objects from groups that
they considered ethnically mixed, such as Chuvantsy
[Chuvan] and so-called Russianized Natives.

Representing the Past

James Teit amassed a large collection of semiobsolete
traditional Indian costumes that many local photogra-
phers borrowed for photo sessions throughout the
Nicola Valley region (Wickwire 1993; Fig. 35). Harlan
Smith, working with Boas, besides acquiring tools for
the collection was able to arrange photographic scenes
of a Secwepemc [Shuswap] woman stretching deer
hide and digging roots (Fig. 36). The scenes were ex-
pressly composed to serve as the basis for a life group
representing the Thompson Indians" in the Hall of North
West Coast Indians that Boas was curating at the AMNH
(Miller and Mathe 1997:39-40, 100-1; Fig. 37):

At Kamloops got 1 pestle or hammer-bone
beater, part of a carved digging stick handle.
Deer skin, scraper, stone in handle— birch
bark basket and stone scraper. For these last
4 I paid $4.00. This seemed high but I
photoed the woman scraping skin and
thought you would need a skin and scraper
for a group showing squaw scraping skin.
Then I photoed woman digging roots and
knowing you had a digging stick I only
bought basket for I thought you had no old
dirty used baskets and would want one for
the group so not to take any out of the case
collection. Teit says $5.00 was cheap for
them. (Smith to Boas, 27 April 1 898, AMNH)

These scenes were used as references, along with
Smith's photos of underground Kikulie houses, for a
miniature group that has remained on exhibit in the
Hall of North West Coast Indians and for a large-scale
"Thompson Indian" [NIaka'pamux and others] life group
in the same hall (Fig. 38). The life group shows the deer
skin— considerably smaller than that in the original field
photograph— and the scraper. The juxtaposition of
scales and the combination of authentic artifacts with
fabrications to present a seamless vision inside the
glass box create a theatrical fantasy of traditional

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

culture. The pictorial effect created by the view of old
costumes, genuine artifacts, architectural motifs, and
wax physiognomies was, as a critic wrote in another
context, "neither genuine nor spurious, but illusory and
fantastic."' 3

When comparing the life group with the photo-
graphs on which it was based, the most obvious dif-
ference, besides the altered scale, is that the woman
photographed by Smith was wearing western-style
clothing, while the mannequin is in traditional dress.
At about the same time, Charles Hill-Tout observed
that "the old-time clothing has gone entirely out of
use, with the exception of the moccasin, which is still
almost exclusively worn by the old people of both
sexes" (Hill-Tout 1978:51). In a guide to the North West
Coast Hall, Boas noted that Interior Salish Indians no
longer wore deerskin. Other cases representing the
Thompson Indians in the hall also show and describe
the older traditional clothing of the NIaka'pamux and
their neighbors. One hundred years later, anthropolo-
gist Marianne Boelscher Ignace was able to identify
the individuals in Harlan Smith's photographs as Sec-
wepemc tanner Emma Basil Simon when Simon's nieces,
Christine and Florence Simon of Skeetchestn, British
Columbia, recognized their aunt as the figure in the
photos. The image itself has attained iconic stature as
a symbol of traditional Interior Salish cultures and has
been widely reproduced— for example, as a large
anonymous mural in the Royal British Columbia Mu-
seum in Victoria, the provincial capital.

As guest curators of the AMNH's 1 997 Jesup Ex-
pedition centenary exhibition. Drawing Shadows to
Stone: Photographing North Pacific Peoples, 1897-
1902, we were fortunate to be able to name Emma
Simon and her family as the individuals behind the im-
ages. With the kind permission of the Skeetchestn Band,
we were also allowed to include Marianne Ignace's
own contemporary photographs documenting Nellie
Taylor— ^a Secwepemc elder who passed away in
1 997— demonstrating the same art of hide tanning,
which has endured to this day. The tanning process

has become a symbol of the strength and indepen-
dence of Interior Salish women, who have sustained
the art despite its suppression in government mission-
ary schools in Nellie Taylor's youth. Harlan Smith's Jesup
Expedition photographs of Emma Simon, placed side
by side with the Boasian life group and Ignace's mod-
ern pictures of Nellie Taylor, visually demonstrated for
today's museum visitors the perseverance of the very
traditions that Boas and his peers had feared were dy-
ing out.

Exchanging Images

The indexical authority of a photograph as historical
fact normally seeks to assert itself over the mutable
iconic meaning of the picture (Barthes 1 977; Sontag
1 977). To a certain degree, this equation is reversed in
the artifice of museum representation, where patently
constructed images stand as models of culture. In "The
Museum as a Way of Seeing," Svetlana Alpers (1 991)
maintains that a museum can transform anything con-
tained within its walls into an art object. By virtue of
its selection for inclusion in the museum, an object
takes on a symbolic mantle, signifying a meaning be-
yond itself. The investiture of artifacts with ethnographic
or historical significance manifests itself as a visual trope,
spotlit in isolation and displayed on a pedestal vitrine.
The individual object comes to represent an idealized
type.

The dramatic reconstruction of precontact life is
typical of the museum models based on photographs
from the jesup Expedition. The museum, as a stage for
the objects claimed by salvage anthropology, recon-
structed their contexts within the visual trope of dis-
play. The efficacy of images for purposes of illustration
and representation was largely independent of how
the images were obtained. Although Koryak people in
the remote coastal village of Kamenskoye were reluc-
tant to submit to many aspects of the Jochelsons'
strange anthropological endeavor, they posed for a
series of photographs of their village and annual
ritual cycle (Miller and Mathe 1997:35-40). These

B. MATH^ AND T. R. MILLER

photographs later served as the basis for a detailed
miniature diorama that is still on display in the Hall of
Asian Peoples at the AMNH, where it is labeled as a
representation of Paleolithic life. The composite of pho-
tographic scenes modeled in the diorama employs a
surreal juxtaposition of activities and rituals drawn from
different times in the ritual cycle of the Maritime Koryak,
creating a distorted, theme park-like view of the
people's daily lives (Figs. 39, 40, 41 ).

The process of representation began in the field
with the imagining of the museum. Photographs of the
museum were useful in the field for anthropologists
hoping to acquire collections. To explain their unusual
requests, the anthropologists showed pictures of the
AMNH. '5 If suitably impressed, people were some-
times more willing to provide objects and images for
the museum's collections. Smith wrote to Boas from
Eburne:

I have used up all the pictures I have of the
Museum persuading the Indians here to let
me have houseposts. I show them that the
posts are in rain and weather then picture of
museum & ask them to let us house the
posts. If you can please have sent to me 3 or
4 more pictures each of Museum, lecture hall
and a case hall. (Smith to Boas, 1 9 May
1898, AMNH)

Under certain circumstances, such tactics proved
all the more persuasive for being backed by colonial
authority, as was the case with Chief Louis (Fig. 42).
Chief Petit Louis (HIi Kleh Kan) led the Kamloops Indian
Band from 1855 to 1915, a period of cataclysmic
changes on the interior plateau. He helped to hold
together the Secwepemc [Shuswap] nation when
native cultures were under attack, voicing persistent
claims to land, sovereignty, and distinct identity. The
band had already objected to Harlan Smith's taking
human remains when Boas, moonlighting for the
crown as an agent of the BAAS, attempted to obtain
the chief's consent for anthropometric work. He suc-
ceeded only by invoking the authority of the queen of
England over the Indians who were legally her royal
subjects. In a lantern-slide lecture following the first

1 32

Jesup Expedition field season. Boas admitted using
coercive pressure to overcome the Indians' resistance
to being cast, photographed, and measured:

I am afraid, that, in trying to coax him to
submit to the operation, I gave him a rather
wrong impression in regard to the character
of our work. ... I told him that the Queen
desired to see the great chief of the
Shushwap, and since she was too old to visit
him, I had been requested to take his portrait
and bring it to her, and that at the same time
she had asked me to present him with his
own bust, which he was to place in his
house, so that his people might understand
how important a man he was. This argument
removed all his objections, and, after he had
consented, there was of course no difficulty
in getting just as many men of his tribe as I
pleased. (Boas 1 897a)

Boas showed Chief Louis' portrait as an anonymous
classic Shuswap male physical type in the published
album of photographs from the jesup North Pacific
Expedition. Subsequent presentations of the same im-
age have varied according to different contexts, in-
cluding a prominent place in the gallery of the
Secwepemc Cultural Education Society located on
Kamloopa reserve land and its presentation as an arti-
fact of historical Interior Salish-European relations in
the Jesup centenary exhibition Drawing Shadows to
Stone.^^

Boasian Visions

The logic of Boas' directives to the scientists on the
Jesup North Pacific Expedition was to document entire
cultures to the greatest extent possible. His vision of
anthropology was as a science of inductive method
whose aim was the description and historical recon-
struction of entire societies. Representing a whole cul-
ture by means of fragments vested with iconic signifi-
cance, the visual ethnographer judged which aspects
to emphasize and which to omit. The criteria for
choosing which elements were distinctive features
of a culture and which were mere acculturations or
adaptations were ethnographic litmus tests of tradi-
tion and authenticity as seen by the anthropologist.

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

The features chosen by the ethnographer— most of-
ten, those elements considered to represent precontact
survivals— were seen as the salient features that could
symbolize a culture as a whole.

A comparable method of visual typology is em-
ployed by artists on the Northwest Coast. The artists
highlight the symbolic elements that signify an animal's
totemic character. Boas wrote in 1 897:

In consequence of the adaptation of the form
to the decorative field, the native artist cannot
attempt a realistic representation of his subject,
but is often compelled to indicate only its main
characteristics. ... It would be all but impos-
sible to recognize what animal is meant, if the
artist did not emphasize what he considers the
characteristic features of animals. These are so
essential to his mind that he considers no
representations adequate in which they are
missing. ( Boas 1897b:126)

In his January 1 897 lecture, Boas asserted that for Ameri-
can Indian artists.

One of the greatest . . . difficulties is the lack of
knowledge of the principles of perspective. To
most primitive people a picture of a solid
object that shows only one side is incomplete.
They ask: Where is the rest of the object? . . .
[B]y the desire to represent all the parts of the
thing pictured, the artist is led step by step to
disregard their relations in space. The character-
istic design is added as a distinctive feature to
the conventional figure representing a type. . . .
There is only a short step from this stage to the
second characteristic stage of primitive art in
which the realistic picture of the object is
omitted entirely and only its distinctive symbol
is represented. (Boas 1 897a)

In his study of Northwest Coast decorative art follow-
ing the first jesup Expedition field season. Boas de-
scribed the Native artist's method of representation:

I conclude . . . that it is the ideal of the native
artist to show the whole animal, and that the
idea of perspective representation is entirely
foreign to his mind. His representations are
combinations of symbols of the various parts
of the body of the animal, arranged in such a
way that if possible the whole animal is
brought into view. ( Boas 1897b: 176)

Nearly two decades later, in 1916, Boas restated and
elaborated on the concept:

While in our modern perspective drawing the
painter tries to give the visual impression of
the object, showing only what we believe
we see at any given moment, we find that in
more primitive forms of art this solution of
the problem appears unsatisfactory, for the
reason that the momentary position of the
object will not exhibit certain features that
are essential for its recognition. For instance,
if a person is seen from the back, the eyes,
the nose, and the mouth are not visible; but
at the same time we know that the eyes,
nose, and mouth are essential characteristic
elements of the human form. This idea is so
fundamental in the view of most primitive
people that we find practically in every case
the endeavor to represent those elements
that are considered as essential characteris-
tics of the object to be represented. It is
obvious that when this is to be done, the
idea of rendering the momentary impression
must be given up, because it may not be
possible to see all these different features at
the same time. (Boas 1916, 1940:537)

In his monograph Primitive An, Boas finally admit-
ted that perspective representation was an option oc-
casionally employed by "primitive" artists, but he con-
tinued to stress the aspects of symbolic representa-
tion in their art (Boas 1 928:78).

Reasoning that specific techniques of represent-
ing a three-dimensional form in two dimensions are
culturally determined. Boas developed a theory of
graphic representation in his studies of Northwest
Coast Indian art. He considered the approach and point
of view of the Northwest Coast artist to be essentially
different from that of the Euro-American. Whereas the
western artist's illusionistic perspective showed a sub-
ject from a single point of view at a specific moment
in time (much as in a photograph), the Northwest Coast
artist's rendering could be read as symbolically show-
ing all the important features of a subject at once,
without reference to a fixed vantage point. One such
form has come to be called "split representation": an
image is divided into two halves splayed down the
center, with all aspects of the creature front, back,
top, bottom, and both sides represented at once
on the same plane (Boas 1 928:22 1-51; Levi-Strauss
1963; Fig. 43).

B. MATHE AND T. R, MILLER

133

In archives, multiple points of view can be recon-
structed simultaneously to achieve an effect outside
the constraints of a fixed vantage point in space and
time. Although the individual photograph is limited to
a single perspective, viewing collections of photographs
allows the construction of symbolic models of cul-
tures. The multifaceted research collections commis-
sioned by Jesup and organized by Boas represent cul-
tures in a manner that recalls the way Northwest Coast
artists represent animals: as a combination of distinc-
tive features seen from numerous angles all at once
(Fig. 44). Artifacts and images sampled from the greater
cultural whole form an inevitably incomplete record of
the change over time. As visual archaeology, archival
collections are the shards and fragments of history and
cultural memory (Miller and Mathe 1997:29-32; see
also Blackman 1 981 ; Morris 1 994). The photographer
represents the scene as he or she has composed
it, the camera records the reflection of a subject, and
the viewer reads meaning into the image. As time
passes, the photograph becomes a memento mori.

In contrast to the myriad viewpoints approximated
by the collections in the archives, in designing
museum exhibits Boas strove for a theatricalized, illu-
sionistic effect more like that produced by the camera
in a single photograph. While planning the Hall of North
West Coast Indians in November 1 896, a few months
before he embarked on the Jesup Expedition to collect
objects for the hall, Boas described to Frederic Ward
Putnam, the chief curator of the AMNH Department of
Anthropology, his vision for the life-group models:

It is an avowed object of a large group to
transport the visitor into foreign surroundings.
He is to see the whole village and the way the
people live. ... the larger the group the more it
is necessary to allow ample space around it so
that it can be seen from a distance. (Boas to
Putnam, 7 November 1 896, AMNH)

Boas conceded that a complete illusion was only
possible within a panorama building where viewers
could be surrounded by an image that filled their
peripheral vision, creating the impression of a scene

1 34

without boundaries. But although a full panorama was
not feasible in the museum hall, he described to Putnam
how an illusionistic effect might be achieved:

In order to set off such a group to advantage
it must be seen from one side only; the view
must be through a kind of frame which shuts
out the line where the scene ends; the visitor
must be in a comparatively dark place, while
there must be a certain light on the objects
and on the background. (Boas to Putnam, 7
November 1896, AMNH; see also Jacknis
1985:100-3)

The creation of a pictorial illusion by fixing the view-
ers' perspective, framing and isolating the scene, and
focusing light on the object resembles photography
as a mode of seeing. The museum viewer looks through
a glass darkly at a bound and boxed image. The life
groups, mannequins, and miniatures Boas planned for
the display cases would be based on Jesup Expedition
photographs that were yet to be taken in the field.
The life group is presented as a photographic vision,
while the photograph on which it is based aspired to
a three-dimensional mode of representation.

Acknowledgments

Over the past decade— from the initial invitation in
1992 to present a study of the Jesup North Pacific
Expedition photo collection to the American Anthro-
pological Association's meeting, up to the publication
of this volume many friends and colleagues have
helped us with this work and with the Jesup photogra-
phy project in its various stages. They include Chris
Abajian, Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer, Jackie Beckett,
Alexia Bloch, Valerie Chaussonet, Craig Chesek, Carmen
Collazo, Rob Cox, Denis Finnin, William Fitzhugh, Stanley
Freed, Sarah Granato, Jacob Gruber, Marianne Boelscher
Ignace, Chief Ron Ignace, Vladimir Kharlampovich
Ivanov-Unarov, Ira Jacknis, Aldona Jonaitis, Suzi Jones,
Belinda Kaye, Laurel Kendall, David Koester, Jennifer
Kramer, Igor Krupnik, Gavril Kurilov, Larry Langham,
Andrea LaSala, Molly Lee, Stephanie Marlin-Curiel, Tom
Moritz, Maya Nadkarni, Stephen Ousley, Tuyara
Pestrakova, Anibal Rodriguez, Enid Schildkrout, John

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

Swenson, Michael Taussig, Sigurd Teit, Nikolai Vakhtin,
Kris Waldherr, Kevin Walker, Elisabeth Ward, Wendy
Wickwire, C. Y. Wilder, Paula Willey, Laila Williamson, and
many others. The authors alone are responsible for any
errors or misjudgments herein. Special thanks go to
the Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution; the Departments of
Anthropology, Library Services, and Exhibition, Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History; the American Philo-
sophical Society Library; the Secwepemc Cultural Edu-
cation Society; the Nicola Valley Archives; the
Skeetchestn Band; the Cooks Ferry Band; the Ministry
of Culture, Sakha Republic, Russian Federation; the
Anchorage Museum of History and Art; the University
of Washington Press; the members of the Museum
Anthropology graduate seminar at Columbia Univer-
sity; and the Robert Goldwater Library, Metropolitan
Museum of Art.

Notes

1 . As a whole, the Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition produced far fewer images of the Pacific
Northwest than of Siberia. The collections from
both sides of the North Pacific contain fewer eth-
nographic images than physical types, especially
from the North American side. The smaller num-
ber of such scenes may be partly attributable to
the availability of earlier photographs from the
Northwest Coast, including those from Boas' pre-
vious trips to the area.

2. In keeping with the anthropological fash-
ion of the time, some parts of the collection are
only sparsely annotated. Poor, post facto, or miss-
ing notations on objects and images are not un-
usual. The assemblage of photographs, artifacts,
texts, sound recordings, and memoirs is full of
cross-references, some documented but many un-
documented. The montage effect of the succes-
sion of fragmentary images reconstituted as parts
of the archival whole reveals the carefully con-
structed character of Boasian museum collections.
See also Willey, this volume.

3. Harlan Smith was acutely aware of the uses
of cross-referenced image materials as supple-
ments to the collected artifacts and fieldwork of

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

all the team members. In a letter to Boas sent from
Nimpkish River, British Columbia, he scrawled a
note across the top reading, "please save these
letters as a portion of my field note" (AMNH). The
letter, describing his methodology at that particu-
lar site, was annotated with illustrations of a shell
heap and sketches of his archaeological finds. On
June 22, 1898, Smith wrote to Boas from Fort
Rupert, "I take a sample of every foot from a sec-
tion that is I have chosen two places at this heap,
photoed a section at each taken a handful of shell
soil etc. from each layer of each of these sections"
(AMNH). See also Smith 1903.

4. As Ira Jacknis (1984:10) has noted, while
Hastings may have snapped the shutter, Boas "was
always by his side, directing his work, choosing
subjects and maybe even camera angles."

5. See Krupnik 1993. Because of sharp de-
clines in population combined with seasonal mi-
gration, Bogoras and jochelson encountered fewer
natives than they had hoped, but every nomadic
Yukagir and Tungus they met was "held, measured,
photographed and questioned" (jochelson to Boas,
17 July [4 July, old style] 1902, AMNH).

6. On physical-type methodology in turn-of-
the-century anthropology, see also Miller, in press.

7. On Boas' views about museum display and
his criticism of contemporary methods, see Boas
1887; Jacknis 1985; Stocking 1994.

8. In 1 885 John S. Billings had assembled ac-
tual composite photographs of skulls in order to
compare cranial profiles, using a technique devised
by Francis Calton in the late 1870s. See Spencer
1992:105.

9. Source document published on Early
Canadiana Online Website.

1 0. One of the most marked differences noted
by Boas as distinguishing the coastal North Pa-
cific culture area from that of the interior of North
America was the animal identity of the mytho-
logical trickster-hero figure in collected traditional
tales. The role is played by Raven from Kamchatka
and Chukotka eastward across the Pacific Ocean
and the Bering Sea as far as Vancouver Island and
the Olympic Peninsula. On the North American in-
terior plateau east of the Pacific Coast mountain
ranges, the principal trickster character is Coyote,
with Raven taking a supporting role.

1 1 . Loss of vision was of special concern to

1 35

Teit, who frequently and apologetically com-
plained in his letters to Boas (housed at the Ameri-
can Philosophical Society, APS) that his own pro-
ductivity was hampered by a painful eye condi-
tion and failing eyesight.

12. The Sakha [Yakut], a Turkic-speaking
people, originally migrated from the southwest
to northeastern Siberia and settled around
Yakutsk. Although technically not classified as a
North Pacific group, they were included in the
Jesup research program principally because
Jochelson, as a former exile, had excellent con-
tacts in Yakutia and could provide the museum
with a unique opportunity to collect anthropo-
logical material. Although the Yakut had them-
selves absorbed cultural elements from smaller
neighboring groups as well as from Russians and
Cossacks, they remained culturally dominant over
smaller groups in Yakutia. Jochelson's observations
led him to characterize some Tungus and others
as "Yakutized" subgroups.

1 3. The quotation is from "Loitering through
the Paris Exposition," Atlantic Monthly, March
1890, most likely written by Thomas Bailey
Aldrich; "in the Rue de Caire . . . minarets,
moucharabies, Saracenic roofs, horseshoe arches,
and fretted lattices, under a strip of dark blue sky,
overhung booths in which a brilliant confusion of
Eastern colors, shapes, fabrics, physiognomies,
turbans, fezes, perfumes, and sounds, with the
more frequent Oriental dress, created a theatrical
East, neither genuine nor spurious, but illusory and
fantastic, like the hallucinations of anodynes" (p.
364). World's fairs and expositions of the era were
in fact the venues for which many of the
Smithsonian Institution's early life groups were
originally created.

1 4. In his main publication on the Thompson
Indians for the Jesup series, James Teit noted of
the Lower Thompsons and Upper Fraser Band that
"intercourse with the Hudson Bay Company affected
the dress of the tribe, especially of the upper divi-
sion. Skins, etc. were often exchanged for Hudson
Bay pantaloons and coats, colored handkerchiefs
and sashes, red blankets, red or blue cloth, col-
ored ribbons, beads, etc., so that ... all these
articles were in common use among the tribe" (Teit
1900:220). On traditional NIaka'pamux [Thomp-
son] clothing and symbolism, see Tepper 1994.

15. See Miller 1999 on resistance to pho-
tography and object collecting in Siberia.

16. For details about the AMNH's traveling
exhibition marking the Jesup centenary, Drawing
Shadows to Stone: Photographing North Pacific
Peoples, 1897-1902 (Thomas R. Miller and Bar-
bara Mathe, guest curators; Laurel Kendall, project
director), see Lee 1998.

References
Alpers, Svetlana

1 991 . The Museum as a Way of Seeing. In Exhibiting
Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Display. Ivan Karp
and Steven D. Lavine, eds. Pp. 25-32. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Barthes, Roland

1 977 Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang.
Blackman, Margaret B.

1981 Window on the Past: The Photographic
Ethnohistory of the Northern and Kaigani Haida. Na-
tional Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Eth-
nology Service Paper 74. Ottawa: National Muse-
ums of Canada.

Boas, Franz

1 887 Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification.
Science 9(228-9):587-9, 612-4.

1889 On Alternating Sounds. American Anthropolo-
gist 2:47-53.

1 897a The Art of the North American Indian. Lecture.
January 1 6. Columbia College and American Museum
of Natural History. Archived at American Philosophi-
cal Society, Philadelphia.

1 897b The Decorative Art of the Indians of the North
Pacific Coast. Bulletin of the American Museum of
A/flrwra/H/sfo/y9:l 23-76. Washington, DC. Reprinted
in Boas 1995:58-106.

1 898 Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern British
Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 ,
pt. 1 , pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Museum
of Natural History, 2. New York.

[1 904] Guide to the North West Coast Hall. American
Museum of Natural History pamphlet. New York.

1916 Representative Art of Primitive Peoples. In Holmes
Anniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays Pre-
sented to William Henry Holmes in Honor of His 70th
Birthday. Pp. 18-23. Washington, DC: Bryan Press.
Reprinted in Boas 1940:535-40.

1 928 Primitive Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.

1940 Race, Language and Culture. New York:
Macmillan. Reprint: Free Press, 1966.

1 99 5 /A Wealth of Thought: Franz Boas on Native Ameri-
can Art Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Seattle: University of
Washington Press; Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre.

1 36

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

Cannizzo, Jean

1 983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-
ture. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-
ogy 20(l):44-58.

Cole, Douglas

1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.
Edwards, Elizabeth, ed.

1992 Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press in as-
sociation with the Royal Anthropological Institute.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell, eds.
1 988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and
Alaska. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Gruber, Jacob W.

1 970 Ethnographic Salvage and the Shaping of Ameri-
can Anthropohg'^. American AnthropologistVZ:] 89-
99.

Hill-Tout, Charles

1 978 The Salish People: The Local Contribution of
Charles Hill-Tout, vol. 1 . The Thompson and the
Okanagan. Ralph Maud, ed. Vancouver: Talonbooks.
Original edition, 1899.

Jacknis, Ira

1 984 Franz Boas and Photography. Studies in Visual
Communication 1 0( 1 ) : 2 -60 .

Jochelson-Brodsky, Dina L.

1907 K antropologii zhenschin plemion krainego
severo-vostoka Sibiri (Contribution to the anthropol-
ogy of the women of the tribes of northeastern Si-
beria). Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal 25(1 ):1-
87. Moscow.

Kendall, Laurel

1 988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads of
Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William
Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 1 04. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Krupnik, Igor

1 993 Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Rein-
deer Herders of Northern Eurasia. Hanover, NH: Uni-
versity Press of New England.

Lee, Molly

1 998 Exhibition review: Drawing Shadows to Stone.

American Anthropologist 1 00(4, Septem-

ber):l 005-9.
Levi-Strauss, Claude

1963 Split Representation in Art of Asia and North
America. Structural Anthropology 1:245-68.

Loitering through the Paris Exposition

1890 Atlantic Monthly 65 (389, March):360-74.
Miller, Thomas Ross

1999 Mannequins and Spirits: Representation and
Resistance of Siberian Shamans. Anthropology of
Consciousness 10(4):69-80.

In press Seeing Eyes, Reading Bodies: Color, Percep-
tion and Race in the History of the Human Sciences.
In Colors 1800/1900/2000: Signs of Ethnic Dif-
ference. Birgit Tautz, ed. Beitrage zur neueren
Cermanistik. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Miller, Thomas Ross, and Barbara Mathe

1 997 Drawing Shadows to Stone. In Drawing Shad-
ows to Stone: The Photography of the Jesup North
Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902. Laurel Kendall, Bar-
bara Mathe, and Thomas Ross Miller, eds. Pp. 1 8-
102. New York: American Museum of Natural His-
tory; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Morris, Rosalind C.

1 994 New Worlds from Fragments: Film, Ethnogra-
phy, and the Representation of Northwest Coast Cul-
tures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Smith, Harlan I.

1903 Shell-Heaps of the Lower Fraser River, British
Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2,
pt. 4, pp. 1 33-91 . Memoirs of the American Mu-
seum of Natural History, 4. New York.

Sontag, Susan

] 977 On Photography. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Spencer, Frank

1992 Some Notes on the Attempt to Apply Pho-
tography to Anthropometry during the Second
Half of the Nineteenth Century. In Anthropology
and Photography 1860-1920. Elizabeth Edwards,
ed. P. 105. New Haven and London: Yale Univer-
sity Press in association with the Royal Anthropo-
logical Institute.

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1974 Introduction. In The Shaping of American An-
thropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader.
George W. Stocking. Jr., ed. New York: Basic Books

1994 Dogmatism, Pragmatism, Essentialism, Relativ-
ism: The Boas/Mason Museum Debate Revisited.
History of Anthropology Newsletter 21(1).

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1985 Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and
Material Culture. History of Anthropology, 3. Madi-
son: University of Wisconsin Press.

Teit, James Alexander

1 900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 4, pp. 1 63-
392. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, 2. New York.

1 91 2 Mythology of the Thompson Indians. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 8, pt. 2, pp. 199-

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

1 37

41 6. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-
ral History, 1 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill; New York: C. E.
Stechert.

1 930 The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau. In
Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology
for the Years 1927-28, 45. Franz Boas, ed. Pp. 23-
396. Washington, DC.

Tepper, Leslie H.

1 994 Earth Line and Morning Star: NIaka'pamux Cloth-
ing Traditions. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of
Civilization.

Wickwire, Wendy

1 993 Women in Ethnography: The Research of James
A. Teit. Ethnohistory 40{4).S39-62.

1 38

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

I^arian 1, ^mith^s Jesup ["leldwork
on the iNjorthwest (^oast

BRIAN THOM

In three consecutive field trips to British Columbia and
Washington State between 1 897 and 1 899, Harlan
Ingersoll Smith worked as the leading archaeologist
forthejesup North Pacific Expedition, under the direc-
tion of Franz Boas of the American Museum of Natural
History (AMNH). Smith's contributions to the Jesup
Expedition left an important published legacy for the
archaeology of the North Pacific Coast.' These pub-
lished works are well known to the archaeologists
whose careers followed Smith and, to some degree,
defined much of the next 75 years of research (Ames
1 994; Matson and Coupland 1 995; Moss and Eriandson
1 995). Research excavations have often been under-
taken at places Smith documented in his published
site maps (Smith 1907:303; Smith and Fowke 1901).

During and after the Jesup Expedition, Boas inter-
preted Smith's archaeological results as being
suggestive of the historical relationship between
culture groups of the North American Pacific Coast.
Although these archaeological interpretations of North-
west Coast prehistory have long since been super-
seded. Smith's work continues to be a resource for
what it has to say about the material culture of the
communities in which he worked. In addition to Smith's
published work on the Jesup Expedition, he left an
archival legacy of correspondence, photographs, and
physical and ethnological collections. This important
body of little-known work provides insight into the
dynamics of scholarship and research operating around
Franz Boas and the Jesup Expedition.

Smith's Jesup work is a highly interesting and rel-
evant tale about the relationships between archaeolo-
gists, anthropologists, and the people they study. Unlike
Boas' important local collaborators— for example,
James Teit and George Hunt— Smith had no knack for
picking up Native languages nor any personal, long-
term connections with community members.

In 1 897, Smith was merely 25, only six years into
his professional career. He was prevented from com-
pleting his master's degree by the collapse of his father's
business. Insecurity about his finances and his position
accompanied him throughout his Jesup work and was
at first manifested in what Boas characterized as a
cautious manner. With his marriage, and with some
Job security promised in his second field season. Smith
acted more boldly, sometimes against his own better
Judgment, to secure material for the Jesup Expedition.

Smith's worries over the security of his post at the
AMNH at times put him at odds with Boas' research
methodology. Smith was eager to excavate at sites
that would yield quantities of artifacts and human re-
mains so that he could please the benefactors of the
museum with his collections. He was loath to spend
much time in regions that he felt would not produce
many artifacts and was reluctant to leave areas that
he found productive. Boas, on the contrary, frequently
urged Smith to expand his investigations to cover the
entire region so that a broad picture of the archaeol-
ogy could be obtained. Specific research questions
being asked today may be different, but many of the

1 39

issues and situations faced by Smith 100 years ago
have repercussions for anthropological and archaeo-
logical fieldworkers of the present. The following ac-
count of Smith's work demonstrates the dilemmas of
rapport between himself and the community mem-
bers he worked with and between himself and his pro-
fessional colleagues (see also Thom 2000).

Smith's and Boas' correspondence has been kept
relatively intact in the accession records of the AMNH,
and additional notes made by Smith on photographs
record information that supplements his correspon-
dence.'^ Unfortunately, Smith's field notes cannot be
found in the AMNH archives or in the archives of the
Canadian Museum of Civilization, where he spent the
latter half of his career. The references Smith makes to
the notes in a number of his letters indicate that they
would have contained a great deal of detail about his
investigations and his interactions with Native com-
munities. The archivist at the AMNH has suggested
that the notes were probably destroyed once the re-
sults of Smith's work had been published (Belinda Kaye,
personal communication, September 1 995), and indeed.
Smith's published works relating to the Jesup Expedi-
tion are the other main source of information on his
investigations. Although these articles are generally
very descriptive of his archaeological investigations,
they tell only a small part of the story of his work and
almost nothing of the ethnographic work he did
recording information on contemporary Native com-
munities. Only by putting all these pieces together can
we examine the difficulties and controversies experi-
enced by Smith during visits to Native communities in
British Columbia for the Jesup Expedition.

Smith's Early Life

Harlan I. Smith was born in Saginaw, Michigan, in 1 872.
He attended public school and received his bachelor
of arts degree from the University of Michigan in 1 893.
Between 1891 and 1895 he had several jobs; curato-
rial assistant at the Peabody Museum, Harvard Univer-
sity; assistant to the Department of Anthropology for

1 40

the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago; curator
of anthropological collections at the University of Michi-
gan museum; and researcher in Michigan for the Ar-
chaeological Institute of America {Who Was Who in
America 1 942:1 1 42). Although he wished to continue
his formal education, when the familybusiness suddenly
folded he could not afford to return for his master's
degree (Smith to Boas, 17 September 1897, AMNH).
In 1895 Smith was hired by the AMNH as assistant
curator of the archaeology collections; his initial task
was to coordinate research at the Fox Farm site in
Kentucky (Wintemberg 1 940). When Boas began plan-
ning the Jesup North Pacific Expedition in 1896, he
always intended to include Smith as the archaeologist
who would investigate the prehistoric remains of the
people living on the Northwest Coast of North America.

In Boas' first published summary of the Jesup Expe-
dition (Boas 1898:5), he presented his broad ques-
tions that would serve as a framework for studying
the historical, physical, and cultural connections be-
tween the people living in Northeastern Asia and on
the Northwest Coast of North America. Boas stated
that although a unique "race" of Native people living in
North America could be obsen/ed, there were many
distinct "types" of people within that race, given dif-
ferences in skin color, form of head and face, and body
proportion (Boas 1 898:6). He proposed that while this
variability in "type of man" indicated "long-continued
development by differentiation" of physical type and
of cultures, the similarities between these peoples must
be carefully explained by ethnological, archaeologi-
cal, and linguistic evidence:

What relation these tribes bear to each other,
and particularly what influence the inhabitants
of one continent may have exerted on those of
the other, are problems of great magnitude.
Their solution must be attempted by a careful
study of the natives of the coast, past and
present, with the view of discovering so much
of their history as may be possible. ... By
following out patiently and in detail the lines of
interchange of culture, it is possible to trace the
historical development of the tribes inhabiting
a definite region. (Boas 1898:6)

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Smith's work would be a key component in un-

I covering the history of these connections, both through
the examination of "physical type" represented in skel-
etons uncovered from graves and through the artifacts

I that represented the cultures of the people who left
them behind. In addition, Smith was charged with mak-

1 ing extensive photographic records of the communi-
ties he visited and with making plaster cast and pho-
tographic sets of the "physical types" represented in

, the North American regions being studied by the Jesup
Expedition (Boas 1897:537). Although Gerald Fowke
and Waldemar Jochelson would carry out incidental
archaeological investigations in Northeast Asia, the
main Jesup Expedition archaeological research would
be conducted in North America by Smith.

Boas set out his priority areas for ethnological and
linguistic research in those places not already exten-
sively studied and reported on by other contempo-
rary scholars. As systematic regional surveys of archaeo-
logical sites on the Northwest Coast had not yet been
done. Smith's archaeological research was to be "car-
ried on in the whole region" (Boas 1903:77). Smith's
broad focus was intended to provide critical informa-
tion for Boas' overall scheme of collecting local histo-
ries and mythologies to understand long-term relation-
ships between communities. Thus, as shown by the
map of Smith's work (Fig. 45), Smith worked in many
of the Native communities studied by other members
of the JNPE North American contingent. Boas, however,
also placed particular emphasis on the archaeology of
the Coast and Interior Salish people living in British Co-
lumbia and Washington State. This emphasis was in-
spired by a hypothesis made by Boas in previous work
on the relationship between Coast and Interior groups.
Several years before the expedition. Boas had corre-
sponded with Charles Hill-Tout, a local ethnographer
and archaeologist. Hill-Tout had found, in the shell
middens and burial mounds of the lower Eraser River
delta, skulls that were, he claimed, "significantly differ-
ent from the 'type' found among people living in these
areas today" (Hill-Tout to Boas, 1895, in Hill-Tout

1978:35-40). If there were indeed two "types," such
evidence was what Boas needed to understand the
long-term historical "intermixture, linguistic borrowing,
and exchange of cultural forms" (Boas 1 898:6) between
Coast and Interior peoples— an important piece of the
larger picture of the peopling of the North Pacific Rim.

Smith's Fieldwork, 1897

In May 1897, at age 25, Harlan I. Smith accompanied
Boas and Livingston Farrand to the interior of British
Columbia. Smith's first year of investigation was filled
with the enthusiasm and insecurities of a young re-
searcher working under the dynamic Boas. The year
also brought Smith his first experiences with working
in Native communities on the Northwest Coast.

Spences Bridge

Smith, Boas, and Farrand set out from New York on the
Northern Pacific Railway, arriving in Spences Bridge on
June 2, 1 897 (Boas 1 903:78). There they met up with
James Teit and worked for five days making collec-
tions from archaeological sites and taking photographs
and plaster casts of Native people from the Spences
Bridge area. Teit, a non-Native who had married into
the NIaka'pamux [Thompson] community, worked with
Smith in explaining the processes of photography and
casting to community members, who were otherwise
reluctant to take part.^ Teit was familiar with the major
archaeological sites in the area and guided Smith to
several sites along the banks of the Thompson River,
where Smith made his first collections. Smith expressed
his early thoughts and future expectations in a let-
ter to Marshall Saville, his colleague in the AMNH's
Archaeology Department:

I like this region very much. It makes one feel
like a man; as if one had a right to live and
be free & equal to his fellow men. It strikes
me as a bustling region where work is to be
had by all who really desire to work. The air
is clear cool & rich & puts new life into a
fellow. ... I have seen a number of Indians
and last eve found a village which I had not
been told of and had a pleasant time looking

BRIAN THOM

141

at canoes & talking with natives. ... I very
much hope to make a big collection and fill
my notebooks so that next winter I will have
a good time working up the results with you.
(Smith to Saville, 3 June 1 897, AMNH)

Boas, Farrand, and Teit soon went to the Chilcotin
and Bella Coola regions and left Smith on his own in
the Thompson River and Fraser River area of British
Columbia (Boas 1903:81). Smith made moderate ar-
chaeological collections in the area but did not satisfy
his initial desire to make a large collection in the vicin-
ity of Spences Bridge. After about 1 0 days, he moved
his work up the Thompson River to Kamloops, where
he thought more profitable excavations could proceed.

Kamloops

In Kamloops, Smith met up with Father Jean-Marie
Raphael Le Jeune, a local minister who had extensive
knowledge of the Secwepemc [Shuswap] language.
Boas had already arranged for the expedition to meet
with Le Jeune and have him help explain to the Sec-
wepemc people the procedure of making plaster casts
(Boas to Le Jeune, 1 5 April 1 897, AMNH). After making
their work clear through Le Jeune, Smith took photo-
graphs and made casts of seven people from the area."
Upon completing his work documenting the "physical
type" of these people, he began archaeological exca-
vations at the sites on the bank of the Thompson River
(Smith 1 900d:403-5). He quickly ran into opposition
as he began to unearth human remains (Figs. 46-47):

Indians here object to my taking bones
away— They are friendly & will allow me to
dig graves & take all but the bones. I have
seen [Indian] Agent and Indians are on the
fence. We hope they will change their minds
& allow bones to go to N.Y. for study not for
Joke as they fear. (Smith to Boas, 1 8 July
1897, AMNH)

Father Le Jeune explained the purpose of Smith's re-
search to the Secwepemc people in their own lan-
guage, and Smith received the community's permis-
sion to proceed. The main concern of the Secwepemc
had to do with the respect with which their ancestors
would be treated:

They, after holding a big council where my
side was presented by the Priest [Le Jeune]
telling them I came to get things to use to
teach to people in N.Y., decided to let me
have a few bones to teach with, but I must
cover up all I did not take so as so no bad
white men would take them to make fun of
the Indians. (Smith to Saville, 1 1 July 1 897,
AMNH)

Le Jeune's role in convincing the community of the
validity of the work, although vital, was not revealed
in a subsequent publication:

The Indians do not know to what people
these burials belong, but they do not like to
see the bones of what may have been their
ancestors, disturbed. For this reason the
chief called a council in which the subject
was very fully discussed. Finally the confi-
dence of the people was gained by the help
of a number of photographs of the museum,
in which it was shown how the people
visited the halls in order to see the wonderful
works of the Indians, and how they were
instructed, by means of lectures, in regard to
the meaning of all these objects, and from
that time on they rather helped than resisted
any endeavour to obtain collections. (Smith
1898a:101-2)

Following this meeting. Smith was able to work inten-
sively through the month of June, making a substantial
collection of human remains and artifacts from the
Kamloops area (reported in Smith 1 900d). He sent the
collections back to New York by train before moving
on to Lytton, a town at the confluence of the Thomp-
son and Fraser Rivers.

Lytton

Smith camped on the side of the Fraser Canyon near
Lytton and worked on a number of archaeological sites
that had been exposed by erosion. He was joined by
Charles Hill-Tout and a local man, John Oakes. Several
weeks in July were spent in Lytton collecting from these
exposed sites and photographing pictograph sites in
the Stein River valley (AMNH 42818-42823), all of
which Smith reported on in his first Jesup Expedition
monograph (Smith 1 899b). Smith used his "little knowl-
edge of the Chinook language" to get permission to

1 42

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

make archaeological collections and to make contacts
with people from whom he could collect ethnological
materials. He photographed two young babies from
Lytton and the remains of some recently abandoned
pithouses.5 As he wrote to Saville, he began to make
substantial collections in a very short period of time:

Last night we worked until midnight carrying
to the depot at Lytton (there is no wagon
road) on our backs the 1 1 boxes of speci-
mens I secured during the 6 preceding days.
How is that for one week, eleven boxes? . . .
This is a glorious country. One feels so well
he can work hard and not notice it any more
than play. Saturday I crossed the rapids and
climbed up a mountain— and got 6 cradles
and a stone pestle and raw material of which
pipes are made and with the help of my man
carried all that load many miles back over
the river in a boat, washed Vz mile down
stream by the rapids and in time to carry our
1 1 boxes of specimens to the depot. At any
rate I mean to make so big a collection that
it will be my time to catalogue and arrange it
or break my leg trying. (Smith to Saville, 1 1
July 1897, AMNH)

In the 1 1 boxes Smith packed several skeletons from
graves that he had photographed (AMNH 42808-
4281 0, 4281 7). At the end ofjuly he parted with Oakes
and Hill-Tout and headed north to the Skeena River,
where he would meet again with Boas.

North Coast of British Columbia
Smith went down the Fraser River to Victoria and then
up the coast by steamer to the Skeena River. He met
with Boas on August 1 1 . There is, of course, no corre-
spondence from Smith to Boas from this period, and
no published reports by Smith. Boas, however, does
discuss Smith's work on the coast between the Skeena
River and Fort Rupert in several letters and publica-
tions (Boas 1903; 1905; Rohner 1969). Smith's cata-
logue of photographs shows that he spent consider-
able time with Boas in Prince Rupert photographing
the artwork of the Haida and Tsimshian people who
came to town and the people themselves.'' Very few
of these photographs made it into publications of the
Jesup Expedition (see Mathe and Miller, this volume).

Smith then moved down to the village of Bella Bella
and worked with Farrand for some time, assisting him
with making casts and photographs of Heiltsuk [Bella
Bella] people and with taking several views of an old
house. ^ Boas and George Hunt met Smith and Farrand
at Bella Bella and moved on shortly thereafter to Fort
Rupert so that Boas could continue his work with the
Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI]. During this time. Smith
was engaged in photographing and making casts of
people in the communities at Alert Bay and Rivers In-
let.^ After working during the month of August with
Boas making casts and taking photographs on the
North Coast, Smith took his leave from Fort Rupert
and traveled to Fraser River to continue his archaeo-
logical research. It is interesting that while with Boas
on the Northwest Coast, Smith did almost no archae-
ology, instead assisting Boas with work in physical
anthropology— a pattern consistent with Boas' personal
avoidance of field archaeology (Mason 1943:59).

Marriage and Money

Boas' correspondence with his family during the time
he spent with Smith on the North Coast sheds light on
Smith's enthusiasm for making large archaeological
collections in other areas of British Columbia. Boas
wrote to his wife, on Smith's arrival at the Skeena River,
that Smith had been considering getting married in
the fall but was concerned about his financial security:

I have some news for you which will be a
surprise. The night before last Smith came to
me and told me that he wanted to do
something which I would think was very
stupid. He wants to get married on the way
back. He thinks he could live with a wife on
$60 a month. He wanted to know my
opinion. Still waters run deep! He said he had
thought over everything carefully and that he
has been engaged for many years and now
he wants to get married. I told him what
difficulties he would have living on such a
small amount and that his chances for a
major raise were very slim. I told him I could
not argue with him, that I could only warn
him of all the problems he would have, but
that I was convinced he would do whatever
he wanted anyway. He asks whether you

BRIAN THOM

1 43

think that he could make ends meet . . .
Maybe that explains to a large extent Smith's
curious being and his sensitivity. (Rohner
1969:225-6, and Douglas Cole, 1996)

Boas' impression of Smith's financial situation
caused Smith some concern. Smith quickly wrote
letters to Putnam, the head of the Department of An-
thropology at the AMNH, and to Winser, the manager
of accounts, regarding his concerns over finances-
letters that. Boas told his wife, were most tactless:

Yesterday I wrote a long letter to Putnam on
behalf of Smith. Smith wrote him that he
wants to get married, and Putnam is very
much worried about it. One cannot give
Smith advice because he is going to do
whatever he wants to do. Putnam told me
about a letter Smith had written to Winser. I
wish Smith would learn certain things,
especially to hold his tongue with respect to
some people. I don't know but I have doubts
that he will ever amount to anything. His
education has many gaps, and it will always
be apparent because he does not have the
mind to spur him on and help him try to fill
the gaps. He likes mostly activity which he
can do with his hands. He is clever and
resourceful, etc., but where theoretical work
is involved, he lags behind. His attitude in all
possible fields is very naive, and frequently
the questions he asks are unbelievably
simple. I often tell him to think it over himself
and then give me the answers to his own
questions. On the other hand he is such a
nice fellow that I really feel sorry for him. Well
maybe he will succeed yet. He is only
twenty-five years old. But if he really should
get married with an income of not over $60,
I don't know what will become of him.
(Rohner 1969:229)

The day Smith was to depart, Boas and Smith had
another discussion. Boas wrote a final note to his wife
about Smith's situation:

Yesterday the Princess Louise [a vessel that
carried passengers up and down the coast of
Vancouver Island] arrived, and Smith
promptly made ready and went aboard. Last
night we had an earnest conversation in
which I urgently advised him to wait with his
marriage. I told him he would get more
money after January, I am almost certain. I
also told him that I thought it was dangerous
to get married on $60. I could see that all
the time he talked with me, he was thinking
about his letter to Putnam. ... I hope he will

be good in his future work. I wanted him
away from here because there was not much
for him to do, and every day during this
season counts for his work. (Rohner
1969:233, and Douglas Cole, 1996)

Boas' uncertainty about the possibility of Smith and
his wife living on only $60 a month must have deep-
ened Smith's anxiety about making large, good-qual-
ity collections to satisfy the patrons of the AMNH.
Boas was much less concerned with the size of Smith's
collections than with getting a broad picture of the
archaeology of British Columbia and Washington.
Smith's possible financial insecurity made him want to
concentrate his excavations in productive areas such
as the lower Fraser River and distracted him to a cer-
tain degree from pursuing the broad research agenda
that Boas had set out for him.

Port Hammond

After arriving at the lower Fraser River on September
2, 1 897, Smith took room and board near the large
shell heap at Port Hammond. Here he conducted ex-
tensive excavations until the end of October. Smith's
work on the lower Fraser River had been preceded by
the surveys of Charles Hill-Tout, who had investigated
archaeological remains in the area for several years.
Hill-Tout had previously sent Boas descriptions of un-
usual skulls that he had obtained from archaeological
sites in the lower Fraser River area (Hill-Tout to Boas,
1 895, in Hill-Toutl 978:35-40). These skulls were long
and narrow, showing evidence of lateral pressure. They
were thought by Boas and Hill-Tout to represent the
remains of an earlier group of people, as the later popu-
lations on the lower Fraser River had wide heads and
broad faces, produced by posterior pressure. The prob-
lem of the age and distribution of this type of skull
was one of the main questions Smith was supposed
to address in his investigations. If, indeed, two differ-
ent "types" of skulls were represented archaeologically
in the lower Fraser River region. Boas' linguistic hy-
pothesis of a recent Salish movement into the coast
area from the interior would be confirmed.

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

The findings from Smith's excavations at Port
Hammond are well described in a number of his publi-
cations (Smith 1899a:536-9, 1903, 1904c; Smith and
Fowke 1 901 :60). Smith's archaeological work focused
on recovering human remains— skulls, in particular—
and on making collections of the artifacts from the
shell heap.5 In much of his correspondence with Boas
about the archaeological work, Smith reported on day-
to-day finds and his concerns regarding the packing
of this material and its shipment to New York. During
these first excavations at a lower Fraser River shell
midden, Smith noted the similarity between the skulls
and art found in the shell heap and those of the present-
day people living on the lower Fraser River (Smith to
Boas, 1 7 September 1 897, AMNH). He felt that he had
to excavate deeper to get to the more ancient type of
people represented by the long, narrow skull collected
by Hill-Tout (Smith to Boas, 23 September, 3 October,
5 October 1 897, AMNH). Without these deeper inves-
tigations in the lower Fraser middens. Boas' hypoth-
esis could not be adequately tested.

Excavations in the shell heap at Port Hammond did
not reveal as many artifacts or skeletal remains as had
Smith's work in Kamloops and Lytton. At the end of
his first week of excavation, Smith wrote a number of
concerned letters to Boas in which he expressed dis-
appointment at the quantity of finds from the site:

Got a child below undisturbed shell heap
today. The skull was not there. Several bone
implements constitute our day's finds. I shall
photo a cross section tomorrow. I am a little
disappointed in results here. The field looks
very rich from the surface and we may yet
make a strike. I hope those at N.Y. will not
expect too much from this place for I fear
they will be disappointed if they do. (Smith
to Boas, 7 September 1897, AMNH)

Boas, now in New York, swiftly replied to Smith,
again reminding him of the "scientific" objectives of
the research. On the same day Smith received his let-
ter, he replied to Boas, "I will try to do the scientific
work as you desire in the shell mounds and overcome
my fear of not securing sufficient specimens to please

the persons at the museum who look for such eagerly"
(Smith to Boas, 1 5 September 1 897, AMNH). After giv-
ing the matter further consideration that night. Smith
wrote a follow-up note to Boas regarding his insecuri-
ties about his situation:

I fear you think I act very strangely at times
and I guess I do. I know I have still a trace of
the effects of being in father's office during
the time everything went to the dogs. It
made me have fear of being able to earn a
living, fear of being cheated, fear of every-
thing & everybody which was often without
the slightest reason and while I could & can
reason that there is no sense in such fears I
can not even yet escape them. At times they
so upset my nerves that I hardly know what I
do. I never have been able to escape the fear
of losing my situation. I suppose it is all due
to seeing everything father had swept away
and knowing he was a powerful man com-
pared with me showed me how helpless I
was. And at the same time it made me
dependent on myself while before I had no
knowledge of what that was. I think this
accounts for some of my doings that seem
strange. (Smith to Boas, 16 September 1897,
AMNH)

Smith continued to work over the next several
weeks as if walking on eggshells. He asked, in cau-
tious notes to Boas, what other museum staff, includ-
ing Jesup, thought of him. He looked for advice on
whether he should try to write newspaper articles for
the McClure Syndicate about the expedition and reas-
sured Boas that he would address the research ques-
tions at hand. "I think to get at questions we need
deeper shell heaps, but do not care to leave here until
we have a more complete collection and hence knowl-
edge of this place, unless you so desire. Kindly let me
know" (Smith to Boas, 23 September 1897, AMNH).

In addition to Smith's insecurities about being able
to produce satisfactory results for the AMNH, a more
immediate concern was a looming situation that had
the potential to impede his fieldwork. In his first week
at Port Hammond, Smith read in the local papers that
two collectors from the Field Museum, George Dorsey
and Edward Allen, had been arrested in Oregon for
grave robbing and subsequently released (Cole

BRIAN THOM

1 45

1 985:1 75-6). Only a week later, the Indian agent from
New Westminster visited Smith to discuss the same
topic. As Smith reported to Boas:

He said that every Indian Agent here had
received notice that there was a liability of
parties digging in Indian grave yards and to
look out for them as it was against the law.
Also he had received a second circular giving
him direction to warn the Indians & tell them
the law on the subject. (Smith to Boas, 1 5
September 1897, AMNH)

Smith contacted British Columbia's superintendent
of Indian affairs, A. W. Vowell, to thank him for some
collections he had sent to the AMNH. Smith also
inquired at this time about the Indian agent's warning
against grave robbing. Vowell replied that the circulars
were not directed toward Smith's work but, rather,
were to inform local Native people about non-Natives
who were digging up their graveyards so that the land
could be preempted for settlement. This reply eased
Smith's concern about collecting human remains, so
he continued his work in the shell heaps at Port
Hammond (Smith to Boas, 3 October 1 897, AMNH).

Smith also used this time, especially on rainy days,
to make his own contacts in the Katzie and Musqueam
communities near Port Hammond and Eburne in order
to photograph and make casts of the people there
and collect ethnographic objects. In contrast to his
experiences with Teit and Le jeune (and, later, Hunt),
Smith did not have prior contacts with these Native
communities. Nevertheless, members of the Katzie
community near Port Hammond offered him the op-
portunity to purchase a blanket of mountain goat wool,
woven hats, a sxwayxwey mask, canoes, spindle
whorls, rush mats, and other utilitarian items (Smith to
Boas, 1 5 September, 9 October, 30 October 1 897,
AMNH). Following his cautious program. Smith did not
purchase any of these objects, as he wished Boas to
give him direction on such acquisitions first. Smith did
eventually purchase one of the beautiful mountain goat
wool blankets on November 4, on his way back to
New York, when he paid only $6 instead of the $10

for which it had been offered on September 1 5 (Smith
to Boas, 10 November 1897, AMNH).

Smith was less cautious when it came to trying to
obtain photographs and casts of the people living
along the Fraser River. He initially tried to do some
photography and casting of Native people at the prison
in New Westminster, but his request was denied (Smith
to Boas, 1 5 September 1 897, AMNH). Smith spent a
number of days during rainy October urging people in
the Katzie community to be photographed and cast.
Although he offered $1 .00 for each cast, only Archille
James, a 19-year-old youth from Katzie, agreed (Fig.
48; AMNH 42886-42889). By the end of the 1897
field season, Smith had not been able to get any other
person from the Coast Salish communities in Victoria
or the lower Fraser River to agree to be either photo-
graphed or cast:

I could not get a single Songish at Victoria,
nor can I get any here [at Port Hammond] to
submit to be cast ... All these lower Frazier
people seem to object to casting— I must try
here again next season when I work at the
Great Frazier Midden. (Smith to Boas, 1 1
October 1897, AMNH)

Victoria

On October 22 Smith shipped crates of his work from
Port Hammond to New York and left the lower Fraser
River for Victoria. Upon his arrival in Victoria, he met
Oregon C. Hastings, a local resident who had worked
with Boas in Fort Rupert in the past and was keenly
interested in the archaeological sites of the area. The
next day. Smith and Hastings set out to examine some
of the burial cairns at Cadboro Bay, four miles north-
east of Victoria (Smith and Fowke 1 901 :58).'° In seven
days, he excavated 21 cairns. He was most disap-
pointed to find that there was "only a speck of char-
coal and a handful of bone dust" remaining in these
cairns, largely because of the highly acidic soil and the
shallow depths at which the bodies had been interred
(Smith to Boas, 30 October 1 897, AMNH). After the
cairn excavations. Smith and Hastings set to work at
"the deepest shell heap I have seen" in Victoria. But

1 46

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

here again, Smith was disappointed at the scarcity of
finds (Smith to Putnam, 4 November 1 897, AMNH).

To compensate for the poor excavation results.
Smith followed up some leads he had on ethnological
collecting. He visited a small island in Esquimalt Harbour,
where he was offered a drum used in winter dancing
for $1 and a house post for $12. Still an archaeologist
at heart, Smith commented that he saw "shell heaps in
the process of formation" on the island (Smith to Boas,
3 November 1 897, AMNH). Upon his return to Victoria,
he met four men and three women, none of whom he
named, from Kaiuquot on Vancouver Island who agreed
to be paid $1 to have casts made and photos taken
(Smith to Boas, 10 November 1897, AMNH)."

On November 10, Smith boarded the train, stop-
ping at Port Hammond before leaving for the East Coast.
Despite Boas' advice, he was married to Helena Oakes
in a small ceremony in Saginaw, Michigan, on Novem-
ber 25. He then returned to New York to work on
organizing and writing up the 1897 material.

In the first AMNH memoir to come out of the Jesup
Expedition, Boas summarized Smith's first season of
work and noted the archaeologist's important contri-
bution in "clearing up interesting points in the history
of the Indians" through his examination of the shell
middens of the lower Eraser River:

It seems that the physical appearance of the
Indians during the period of deposit of the
shell-mounds on the lower Eraser River had
undergone material changes. The results that
were here obtained are so important, that it
will be necessary to continue the researchers
during the coming year. (Boas 1 898:1 1 )

Smith's Fieldwork, 1898

During the next season in the field, from April to Sep-
tember 1 898, Smith continued investigating archaeo-
logical sites, photographing and casting physical types,
and collecting ethnological artifacts from the commu-
nities where he worked. But he spent a great deal more
time and energy on the latter, and less time on photo-
graphing and making casts for the study of physical

anthropology. Smith's new wife, Helena, joined him in
the field and drew a number of sketches for his corre-
spondence to Boas. Perhaps because of his marriage
to Helena, or because it was his second field season
with the Jesup Expedition, Smith showed a new confi-
dence in his work and new enthusiasm for the research.
His letters from this season generally discuss in more
detail his relations with local Native communities, and
his archaeological observations are much less tenta-
tive. In spite of this new confidence, Boas still pro-
vided firm direction for the research.

Kamloops

Smith left New York on April 1 3 by railroad via Ottawa
to British Columbia. In Ottawa he spent two days sketch-
ing and making notes on the collections at the Geo-
logical Survey of Canada, under the direction of George
Dawson (Smith n.d.). On April 2 1 he arrived in Kamloops
to examine and collect archaeological materials that
had been exposed by the wind over the past year.

At Kamloops Smith also had the opportunity to
take some useful ethnographic photos, including one
of ayoung girl working on a hide with a stone scraper.'^

While at the village I saw a little girl scraping
a skin with a stone hafted in a handle about
3 ft long similar to the one Teit collected.
Closer inspection showed 3 of these hafted
scrapers, the skin stretched on a frame. I
contemplate photographing her at work
tomorrow and then buying the whole outfit
for you as I think you will want it for a group.
Fr. La Jeune thinks I can get it for $1.50 i.e.
the skin so I suppose I can get skin & sticks
from frame and scrapers entire for less than
$5.00. If so I feel you will be glad of them. I
know this is hardly in my line to collect
Ethnology in this region but the thing seems
too good to see go. (Smith to Boas, 21 April
1898, AMNH)

Smith felt that this collection of photographs and deer-
hide-scraping equipment would be useful for "the con-
struction of an ethnic group; especially since we have
the physical material collected at this place in '97" (Smith
n.d.). Smith also took photographs of a woman dig-
ging roots and of a tepee-like structure.'^

BRIAN THOM

1 47

Spences Bridge

Smith left Kamloops after a week and moved to
Spences Bridge, where he again met with James Teit.
Teit and Smith spent several days photographing te-
pees and sweat houses and excavating in pithouses
near Spences Bridge. During the previous winter, Smith
had sent a number of photographs he had taken to
Teit, who was to distribute them to the people who
were pictured. After Teit had done so, those whose
photos had not been sent were understandably up-
set, and Teit was under some pressure to give every-
one a copy of what had been taken of them. Smith
wrote to Boas asking him to send the remaining pho-
tos to alleviate the situation. He also asked Boas to
send copies of the photographs taken of the picto-
graphs at Lytton (Teit 1 900; York et al. 1 993), as Teit
had agreed to ask local people for explanations (Smith
to Boas, 2 May 1898, AMNH).

Eburne

After just over a week. Smith took his leave of Teit and
Spences Bridge and headed down the Fraser River to
Vancouver, where he set out to explore the large shell
heap at Eburne commonly known as the Great Fraser
Midden (Smith to Boas, 27 April 1898, AMNH). Smith
began his archaeological excavations on May 2. He
had three men working with him in the field; 0. C.
Hastings, W. H. Hindshaw, and Roland B. Dixon, all of
Vancouver (Smith to Boas, 2 May 1 898, AMNH). The
Great Fraser Midden produced a large number of hu-
man remains and artifacts from deeply stratified de-
posits.'^ The finds from these excavations are well re-
ported in Smith's monograph "Shell-Heaps of the Lower
Fraser River" (Smith 1903).

Smith was more determined than ever to discover
the relationship between the long and broad skulls
that both he and Hill-Tout had found in previous
seasons. Boas had clearly convinced him of the impor-
tance of these skulls to the overall research questions
of the Jesup Expedition. Smith believed that by
working at the Great Fraser Midden, where Hill-Tout

had found his original long skull, he would be able to
provide answers to this question. Soon after Smith
began his excavations, however, he became aware
that there may not have been only two types: "Every-
thing is going well. We find two distinct types of skulls
and it seems also that we find every conceivable inter-
mediate form. In fact as Hastings well expresses it, we
get no two alike" (Smith to Boas, 1 6 May 1 898, AMNH).
In a later letter he reaffirmed this observation:

I wrote to you of the Hammond type of skull
and the long type. By long type I meant the
type represented by the Hill-Tout skull. I
don't know how many I have of them but at
least 6 in good condition and some broken.
There seem to be intermediate forms. I feel
all mixed up about them as they are so
different. There may be 3 or 4 types so far as
I can see hastily. . . . The two types seem to
be buried alike i.e. with equal care and some
of each are deep down, others are high up.
(Smith to Boas, 3 June 1898, AMNH)

In the publications of the Jesup Expedition, Smith's field
sense of the different kinds of skulls represented were
overridden by Boas' own interpretation of the human
remains. Neither Smith nor Boas mentioned the uncer-
tainties Smith had in the field about the number of
different types of skulls present in the shell heap.
Instead, they both reported that there were two types
of skulls found in the shell heaps— one narrow and the
other broad, both of which were cranially deformed
(Boas 1903; Smith 1903). Boas' insights were obvi-
ously a powerful force for the Jesup Expedition, and he
considered this a highly significant interpretation,
whether it was correct or not. Had Boas taken seri-
ously Smith's field observations— that there were not
two distinct types of skulls but, rather, many forms in
between— he might have reconsidered his long-held,
but misguided, interpretation that the Salish were rela-
tively recent arrivals in the area.

Another important aspect of Smith's stay at Eburne
was his work among the Musqueam community at
the mouth of the Fraser River, which he visited on a
rainy May day, looking to purchase ethnological ma-
terials for the museum. A man offered to sell him a

1 48

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

"whewhe" [sxwayxweyl mask for $10, a horn rattle
[syiwmexwtses] for $10, and an entire shaman's outfit
for $100 (Smith to Boas, 19 IVlay 1898, AMNH). The
outfit was far too expensive for him, and he decided
to wait before buying the mask, hoping the man would
reduce the price.

I have not yet bought the mask for $10.00
or the horn rattle for $ 1 0.00. I expect to get
the mask in the fall and hope to get it
cheaper by delay. Do you want the rattle at
$10.00? It seems to be fine, has goat wool
fringe, carving of human head on handle, and
the rattle part is carved in their own art.
There was at least 6 of the masks all the
same in the Delta. The shamans outfit
consists simply of mask & feather attach-
ments. I do not think you would care for it at
$ 1 00.00 and I think you would prefer the
$10.00 mask & $10.00 horn rattle to it even
if they were equal in cost. I have worked my
best to get things from them. Hastings has
also. I sent you a list of what we got. Yet I
hope to get more later. I have not all there is
to get & want to bring you a complete lot
from the Fraser Delta. What are shell rattles
worth? Several of this kind of shell [sketch of
a large Pacific scallop shell] are strung on a
hoop. Will make every effort to get all kinds
of baskets & uses. (Smith to Boas, 3 June
1898, AMNH)

This was a difficult time for the Native people of
the Northwest Coast. The Canadian government's laws
banning the potlatch and winter dancing were in full
effect. Missionaries and priests were collecting and
burning ceremonial regalia, and Native children were
being separated from their families and sent to resi-
dential schools. Many of the spiritual activities had to
be conducted underground. A shaman's outfit like the
one offered to Smith was clearly a powerful and im-
portant ritual object at the time and was not going to
be parted with for a small sum of money.

Smith did obtain a house post from "Chief
Nuxwhailak," who accepted only $10 for it and said
that the pole was "part gift to museum" because the
museum was going to use it for "educational purposes"
(Fig. 49). The AMNH received the post on the condi-
tion that it was to be labeled "from house of Kaplanux,

grandfather of present Chief Nuxwhailak from whom it
was obtained" (Smith to Boas, 1 8 May 1 898, AMNH).
The chief's condition about the label on his gift was
not (and has not subsequently been) respected by the
AMNH. Smith attempted to document the meanings
associated with this post, "as well as they could give
them," but he was disappointed by the report given
by Chief Nuxwhailak. "The man figure they say is sim-
ply an ornament or a carving made to be a carving &
has no meaning. They don't seem to know as much of
the old times as we wish they did" (Smith to Boas, 3
June 1898, AMNH).

Had Smith learned to take down accounts in the
Halkomelem language, or had he had the assistance
of someone like James Teit or George Hunt in the
Musqueam community, he might not have been so
disappointed and might have found that people knew
more then they let on in English.

Smith tried to collect other posts that he photo-
graphed at Musqueam during his stay at Eburne.'^ He
used his technique of showing community members
pictures of the AMNH's halls, explaining that if the poles
were moved there, they would be kept out of the rain
and weather. However, he was not able to purchase
any of the others that he photographed, as the people
from Musqueam "would not sell others at any price
except one for which they wanted $100.00 and it
was some broken" (Smith to Boas, 3 June 1 898, AMNH).

Fort Rupert

After spending a few days visiting sites in the Bound-
ary Bay area of Vancouver, Smith traveled up the coast
to Fort Rupert to work with George Hunt. With Hunt's
assistance. Smith was able to arrange the taking of
casts and photographs of a number of men from the
community at Fort Rupert, although no women would
take part.' ' In addition to the usual array of profiles and
poses intended to capture the "physical type" of the
people. Smith took photos of a Fort Rupert potlatch,
gambling, a woman's potlatch, several house posts
and totem poles, and coppers fastened to trees. These

BRIAN THOM

1 49

and a series of "unposed photos" of an old man "clothed
in a blanket sharpening a stone adze" (Smith n.d.) form
a significant contribution to the ethnological photos
of the Fort Rupert area of this time.'*

Smith began his archaeological investigations by
excavating a number of shell heaps in the area.''' He
continued to be puzzled by the different excavation
results from middens in various areas of the coast. In
the Fort Rupert middens he found very few artifacts
and no human remains, which was very different from
the numerous finds in the shell heaps on the lower
Fraser River. In a letter that he intended to be kept as
a portion of his field notes, Smith anticipated the need
for further careful and thorough investigations to make
meaningful interpretations of the archaeological record:

I learn of a new shell heap in every direction
almost daily and at best can only hope to
see a few of them this year, for were I to visit
them all I would have no time to dig in any
of them. I have to chose a few locations and
work in them to get an idea of the different
regions from the few typical representatives.
. . . Some shell heaps but a short distance from
others present such different characteristics
that I feel they may belong to different peoples
or be summer residences fishing stations or the
like of the same people. To determine all these
matters will require considerable further
investigation and if that produces as much
variety it will again extend the investigation.
(Smith to Boas, 6 July 1 898, AMNH)

Smith's concerns had progressed from collecting a
large quantity of samples to please AMNH patrons to
collecting adequate samples for careful interpretations
of each site. Just as Boas had taken issue with Smith's
obsession with large collections, these new difficulties
in interpretation were also a problem for Boas, who
was seeking to get a broad idea of the historical, cul-
tural, and physical relationships of the Native people
of the North Pacific Rim. If archaeology was to provide
answers to these questions during the Jesup Expedi-
tion, investigations would have to be made over the
whole region. This broad goal conflicted with Smith's
methodological desire for thorough investigations
of single, deep sites. But careful interpretation of the

1 50

remains from each site would not allow excavations
at as many sites as Boas wished. Despite Smith's pref-
erence, Boas' leadership in defining regional research
goals pushed Smith on to other areas.

Although archaeological investigations in Fort
Rupert did not reveal many human remains, Smith was
successful in collecting from more recent graves in tree
burials and rock shelters. At the end of the first week
in Fort Rupert, he wrote to Boas:

We have secured five complete skeletons
and three skulls from tree and box burials.
George Hunt got permission to take these
bones. We are doing it secretly however,
leaving no traces behind us and will use the
permission to cover a possible detection.
(Smith to Boas, 1 2 June 1 898, AMNH)

Smith later wrote to Boas that although he had per-
mission from Hunt to take these skeletons, he "thought
what the Indians did not know about it would not
hurt them" (Smith to Boas, 6 July 1 898, AMNH). By the
end of Smith's stay in Fort Rupert, 32 skulls had been
obtained from tree, box, and cave burials, in addition
to several painted boards and boxes from these
graves.-^"

While working in the Fort Rupert area, Harlan and
Helena Smith camped on the shell heap near the home
of George Hunt's sisters, Sarah and Jane. Smith was
delighted by the hospitality of the Hunt family, who
often visited, bringing fresh food and gifts, but the
Hunt family came to have very different feelings about
him and Helena. In addition to several other grievances,
the excavation of the burials was not well received by
the community in the winter, a few months after the
Smiths had left, when community members discov-
ered what they had done. George Hunt received the
brunt of enormous family and community resentment
about the Smiths' stay in Fort Rupert. Hunt wrote (in
his particular style) about these problems to Boas:

Now there is one thing that I am sorry to let
you know what Mrs. H. I. Smith Done for me
and I think for you to now the knight there
arrived here. I went and Beged my two
sisters Sarah and Jane to let them Have a

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Room for the night for Mr. Smith was my
friend, so they did give IVIr. and Mrs. Smith
one of there Rooms in the House free of
charges and after that, my sisters was kind
enough to let them have Empty cases free of
charges and Even Help me in sending the
Indians to him to have there casts taken and
after Mr. Smith left Fort Rupert he left all his
traps in the care of my sister and the thank
my sister got from her, or Mrs. Smith. She
went to Victoria put something against my
sisters, on the newspapers. The it was
enough to make Mr. Spencer and wife and all
my sisters would not speak to me Ever since
they Read the paper of what Mrs. Smith say
about them, and Even signed by her. It seems
to me that Mrs. Smith asked Sarah and Jane
to let her have one each of these photo-
graphs, so my sisters did have her that is to
Mrs. Smith one Each of these photos, and on
the second paper she let the reporters
scratch the two pictures and put them into
the news paper and the names she called
them there I am shame to talk about, so my
sisters got that wild about things that they
went and Report to the Indians what Mr.
Smith done to there Daid and that I was
helping them, and the Indians, said that they
will never let Mr. Smith come to Fort Rupert
again to still there grave again. Now I let Mr.
Smith have David Boat, that cost David
$25.00 Dollars, and after it was returned, the
keel was all worn away, leeking like a basket
for the Bottom was nearly worn through. Yet I
am pleased for the things that I got from Mr.
Smith. (Hunt to Boas, 1 0 Januan/ 1 899, APS)

Hunt's news about the Smiths was accompanied
by the further bad news that one of the Fort Rupert
chiefs had heard that Boas was making speeches tell-
ing of how the KwakiutI were still "living on the Daid
[dead] people." Because of these two incidents. Hunt
was told at a feast that neither he nor Boas could ever
attend ceremonials again. On hearing this news. Boas
responded in defense of Smith and the work of the
Jesup Expedition;

Now about the Smiths. I simply cannot
understand the things you are talking about.
All the letters that I received from Smith and
Mrs. Smith while they were in British Colum-
bia were just full of praise of your sisters and
you mother, and every time they talk about
British Columbia, they say how kindly all of
you treated them; in fact, they are taking
every opportunity to express how much they

are indebted to all of you. I am quite certain
that neither he nor she would willingly hurt
the feelings of any of your people. I suppose
the whole trouble lies with the meddlesome
and nasty newspaper writers. You do not
know how they are bothering us all the time,
and how every thing they learn is twisted
about in the paper so as to make it look
exciting to the people. I suppose you
remember the nasty figures and the horrible
description of the dance that was in one of
the newspapers, said to be written by me,
but which was simply made up, and stolen
out of my book. You may be quite sure that
the same thing happened to the Smiths.
(Stocking 1974:126)"

Boas' response to the accusations by the chiefs is
now something of its own legend: he sent Hunt funds
to host a feast, and Hunt gave out copies of his previ-
ously published KwakiutI work and made a speech to
clear their names. While Boas cleaned up his reputation
with Hunt and the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI], Smith
avoided further controversy by not returning to that
community the next year. Such a response could only
have reinforced Smith's desire to keep his gravedigging
archaeological work quiet.

Nimpkish River, Alert Bay, and Comox
Smith continued to work on the northern end of
Vancouver Island through the months of July and Au-
gust in the area around the Nimpkish River, Alert Bay,
and Comox. Much of his time was spent in archaeo-
logical excavations of shell heaps. The results of these
archaeological investigations are well reported in his
"Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound"
(Smith 1907:305-30). Smith's concern over method-
ological bias in his interpretation of the archaeological
material continued:

I feel that our finds may not in all cases be
correlated with the real losses of these
people, but are more or less influenced by our
luck, consequently we have to do a great deal
[of excavation] and get much in order to
eliminate, as far as possible, the luck equation.
(Smith to Boas, 1 August 1 898, AMNH)

Smith's "luck" in the shell heaps did not include find-
ing many human remains. To compensate for this

BRIAN THOM

apparent lack, he and Hunt continued to collect more
recent burials from grave boxes found in trees. Smith
and Hunt did consult with members of the Comox
community about collecting from a grave site; one
member was willing to sell a grave post for $14."

Smith and Hunt were active in collecting additional
ethnological specimens for the museum. While work-
ing in the Nimpkish River area, Smith was given a large
"grease pole" that served as a fountain for fish grease
at feasts (AMNH 43019). A human figure was carved
into the pole, and fish oil poured into the back of the
head came out of its mouth (Smith to Boas, 1 August
1898, AMNH). While in Comox, Smith and Hunt were
able to acquire a xoaexoe mask, a collection of bas-
kets, and 1 1 carved posts. Smith reported that the
mask was one of two in the area and was purchased
for $ 1 2.00 from a man from Comox. The carved posts
he collected included several grave markers and some
house posts that were standing inside an old long-
house (Fig. 50). This was one of the largest ethnologi-
cal purchases Smith made during his work with the
Jesup Expedition. It took up a substantial amount of
his disposable budget, which curtailed further expen-
ditures during the year. Smith made some detailed notes
on these posts in his correspondence with Boas."

Before leaving Comox, Smith visited Denman Island,
where he observed a shell midden in the process of
creation. His photograph catalogue reads, 'The origin
of a shell heap, clam shell thrown away after a
meal— the fire, the stones, and the sea weed to hold
in steam— all left on beach by a travelling party of
Indians" (AMNH 42031).

Nanaimo and Duncan

During the last week of August, Smith made his way
down the east coast of Vancouver Island from Comox
to Victoria, stopping in the communities of Nanaimo
and Duncan, where there were large Indian reserves.
He located shell heaps in both areas but determined
that "it would be best to devote our remaining time
and money elsewhere" (Smith to Boas, 3 1 August 1 898,

AMNH). In Nanaimo, at the mouth of the Chase River,
he visited a site containing many petroglyphs. He origi-
nally wished to send the rock art to New York by
quarrying the sandstone but thought the expense of
shipping would be prohibitive. He photographed the
petroglyphs and made a plaster cast of one of them
for the museum (Smith to Boas, 31 August 1898,
AMNH).'^'' In Duncan, Smith located a shell heap on one
of the Indian reserves but was not permitted to do
any excavation. He continued to look for house posts
in all four Cowichan villages he visited but did not find
any. Feeling pressed for both time and money, and
disappointed, he continued on to Victoria.

North Saanich, Victoria

Smith arrived in Victoria on August 30 and had a fortu-
itous meeting with five Native people who were will-
ing to be photographed and cast (AMNH 12074-
1 2092). Significantly, these people were not of local
Coast Salish ancestry but were Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka]
from the west coast of Vancouver Island. Smith's fur-
ther efforts in the local Salish villages around Victoria
turned up no one interested in taking part in photo-
graphs or casts.

For the rest of the week, Smith and his crew did
archaeological work at several sites in the North Saanich
area. His main purpose was to explore the cairns that
he had heard about from local residents. He also vis-
ited many local farmers who had collections of arti-
facts, making sketches of them for his publications,
and spent time drawing and making notes on the arti-
facts at the Provincial Museum in Victoria." Smith left
one of his field assistants, Albert Argyle, to continue
investigations in the area around North Saanich, where
several shell heaps and 1 2 cairns were excavated (Smith
to Boas, 31 August 1898, AMNH; Smith n.d.).

Vancouver and Port Hammond
On Smith's return to Vancouver on September 7, he
discovered that the rates for shipping materials to
New York had increased three times over those of the

1 52

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

previous year. He canceled his plans to explore Puget
Sound, Washington, and the Point Grey area in
Vancouver because funds had to be diverted to ship-
ping (Smith to Boas, 7 September 1 898, AMNH). He
decided to use the last of his funds in the Vancouver
area, visiting the Musqueam Reserve in order to col-
lect the objects he had seen the past summer:

Musqueam Indians doubled the price on the
rattle making it $20.00 so I left it. Wanted
$20.00 to be photographed at loom, as did
also Duncan Indians^will try it again at Port
Hammond. Offered $5.00 but thought
$20.00 too much & need it for shell heap
work. Told me 10 disks game on plate not
used & did not know it or have it. It was lost
long ago they said. Told me bear tooth
game did not exist. Conclude the man with
bear teeth meant by "he he" that he was
fixing bear teeth for fun. I thought he meant
for a game. I secured a blanket (Mt. Coat), Vz
made, $3.00. Cowitchin Indians would not
sell loom but I saw how they were made.
They would not show us how to weave as it
took so long & much work & they wanted
$20.00 to do it. I have tried, & with Hastings
help, to get the pictures of weaving at every
place we have been and went twice to
Musqueam, several times in May and once
yesterday. I conclude as I have spent so
much for ethnology ... [I] will use the money
for shell heap work. (Smith to Boas, 7 Sep-
tember 1898, AMNH)

Smith's confusion over the "bear tooth" game came
from a poor understanding of the Musqueam
Halkomelem term xdxe (Smith's "he he"), which means
"sacred," "taboo." As was typical for Smith's work in
the Coast Salish communities, he was able to collect
nothing from Musqueam except a photograph of "cat
tails from mats" (AMNH 43032).

Smith's last money for the season was spent exca-
vating for a few days at Port Hammond. He visited the
Katzie Reserve, where he had previously seen another
Xoaexoe [sxwayxwey\ mask, but again, he was un-
able to purchase it. In September, Smith ended his field-
work and boarded the train for New York.

Smith's investigations over 1 897 and 1 898 gener-
ated a number of specific research questions that he
wished to address through further archaeological work

in shell heaps. He posed these questions to Boas in a
letter written near the end of his field season:

Are the long skulls found elsewhere than at
Eburne? Are they found at Hammond? Are
the rich shell heaps, like those off Hammond
and Eburne, which have a large proportion of
black soil and specimens, uncommon to the
salt water places such as Boundary Bay,
Victoria, Fort Rupert, Comox, etc, where the
heaps consist mainly of shells and are barren
of specimens except in the much near the
top? What is the difference between these
two sorts of shell heaps? Is the former type
peculiar to rivers, or only to the Eraser, or is it
common to a river where tribes could gather
to catch fish then go away, let the grass
grow to cover lost objects so they would not
be again found and where they would loose in
moving or discard before moving, where
murders and lawlessness would be greater?
(Smith to Boas, 31 August 1898, AMNH)

Smith's musings seem distant from the larger goals of
the Jesup Expedition. The problems that concerned him
were those of understanding how the archaeological
sites were formed and what the different functions of
the sites were. His expenditures on ethnology and the
increased rates for shipping made it very difficult for
him to pursue Boas' broad vision at the end of 1 898.
Smith would get one more season under the Jesup
North Pacific Expedition to address these questions.

Smith's Last Fieldwork, 1899

During the summer and fall of 1 899, Smith continued
his investigations at Kamloops, Puget Sound, Port
Douglas, Lillooet, Eburne, North Saanich, Spences Bridge,
and Nicola Lake. His excavations in these areas are
well reported in his publications. However, the archi-
val record for the early part of this last season is not as
complete. The following account is therefore limited
to very brief summaries of Smith's published material
and what can be gleaned from the photograph record.

Kamloops

Smith left New York in early May and arrived in
Kamloops on May 1 6. He paid a brief visit to the sites
from which he had previously collected, finding that

BRIAN THOM

1 53

the wind had revealed additional features. Here he
made several more collections of artifacts and skel-
etons from exposed deposits before moving on to
Puget Sound (Smith to Boas, 1 7 May 1 899, AMNH).

Puget Sound

As in British Columbia, Smith conducted his research
primarily by making surface collections at sites where
artifacts and human remains were exposed, by visiting
and describing existing collections of artifacts in mu-
seums and private collections, and by undertaking ex-
cavations at selected sites that appeared to be prom-
ising for collecting a great deal of material. Of the 25
locations on which Smith reported in his 1907 publi-
cation, he only excavated the five sites of Marietta,
Stanwood, New Dungeness, Port Williams, and Burton.-^^
W. H. Thacker, a resident of western Washington who
worked with Smith in the Puget Sound region, con-
ducted several excavations of shell heaps and burial
cairns in the San Juan Islands (Smith 1 907:380-6).

Smith's photograph records show that he was able
to obtain only a few photographs in these Coast Salish
communities.''^ This general lack of participation in
photography and casting is consistent with that of
other Coast Salish people whom Smith visited. Smith
also took a number of pictures of an old shed-roof
house at Lummi (AMNH 12129-12133) but did not
collect any of the planks or any of the eight carved
house posts that were there. The meager results of the
shell heap work in Washington prompted Smith to re-
turn in late July to British Columbia, where he began his
work in the Lillooet-Harrison Lake region.

Lillooet-Harrison Lake

From Smith's investigations in Lillooet-Harrison Lake,
there are a few letters from Boas to Smith in the
field. It appears that the focus of his work was the
acquisition of skeletons, specifically skulls. Boas felt
that this area might provide important historical in-
formation about the link between Coastal and Inte-
rior people:

I did not expect you to confine yourself to
skulls, but should have been glad to have
had archaeological researches carried on
also. . . . You know the Lillooet region is one
of those inland districts by way of which
coast culture entered the interior, and for this
reason it is particularly interesting from an
historic point of view. It might be, for
instance, that in prehistoric times the culture
proved to be much purer interior culture then
later on, or it might be that the culture was
more closely affiliated to the coast culture
than it is now. The Lillooet have adopted the
social organization of the coast tribes, and
many of their industries, as far north as the
town of Lillooet, on Fraser River. At the same
time they have many things in common with
the tribes stretching from Columbia River
through the Cascade Range, up to the
Chilcotin Valley. It would be exceedingly
interesting to obtain prehistoric skulls from this
area. (Boas to Smith, 5 August 1 899, AMNH)

Smith was successful beyond his expectations in
collecting skulls from the area, but he seems to have
lowered his own ethical standards to do so:

When I began work in the Lillooet Valley I
said "If I can only get two skulls I will be
surprised and pleased" but in this regard I
have succeeded beyond my hope. I have
(16) sixteen more or less complete skel-
etons—all of them are so old that the Indians
said I might dig. But with nearly all, evi-
dences of white contact were found. Some
were under rock piles but not well formed
cairns. Nearly all the skulls are entire ... by
taking skeletons out on backs we got them
out without Indians realizing the bulk & so free
from objections. But when the Indians return
from fishing it would not be pleasant to be
here. (Smith to Boas, 1 9 August 1 899, AMNH)

Although he was pleased about being able to make
such a large collection of material. Smith was con-
cerned about "running some risks" for the expedition:

I consider that no trouble will arise from my
work up the Lillooet and yet as the work
was done while only a few Indians were
there, those who were absent and have
since returned might object. Those that were
present did not confront me much and I feel
that I would rather let the matter be di-
gested by them before taking up more
extensive archaeological studies, which
must, of necessity to careful work and
preservation of specimens, be done more

154 THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

openly. The skeletons I collected there and
at other places are evidence that I am not
trying to get out of running some risks on
small insurance. (Smith to Boas, 16 Septem-
ber 1899, AMNH)

Smith is surely making reference to the cautious atti-
tude he had after his father's failed business.

Boas may have thought Smith too eager to inves-
tigate areas sure to yield quantities of artifacts and
human remains for the museum. While Smith was re-
porting the quantities of human remains being collected
from Lillooet, Boas again became concerned as to
whether Smith was pursuing the larger questions of
the Jesup Expedition by obtaining material from the
entire region being investigated rather than spending
too much time at any one site. Boas wrote to Smith
suggesting that he return to Stanwood, Washington,
to further investigate the relationship between the
Puget Sound shell heaps and those of the Fraser River:

It strikes me that you have spent very little
time at Stanwood, considering the impor-
tance of getting information from a different
region similar to Eburne. I wish you would
consider if it would not be advisable, on your
return from Nanaimo, to go back there once
more, to continue your studies. I hope you
are not too much influenced in your judge-
ment by the number of specimens you find. I
consider it of the very greatest importance
to do as much as we can towards the
solution of the problem of the distribution of
the shell mounds of Eburne character and
also of the distribution of cairns on the east
and west sides of Puget Sound. Of course, I
rely on your judgement in all these matters;
but I wish to urge you not to feel too much
influenced by the consideration of the
number of specimens that you are going to
send back. First of all, we want to under-
stand the history and distribution of cultural
forms. I hope you will consider this matter
while you are working in the Lillooet region.
(Boas to Smith, 29 July 1899, AMNH)

Although Boas was providing strong guidance on the
direction the fieldwork should take, he clearly felt more
secure in Smith's judgment than he had in previous
seasons. Smith advised Boas that a return to Stanwood
would not have been profitable for the expedition:

I fear I did not give you a clear idea of
Stanwood. When the very 1st day I noticed
the blackness of the shell heap I wrote you it
was like Eburne. I referred to the blackness
and to the fact that it was a delta. I now
think the blackness due to surrounding delta
soil instead of clean sand as in the sea beach
shell heaps. There was nothing in the finds at
Stanwood to suggest it to be more like
Eburne than other places except the skulls,
several of which were found. If, after you
examine the skulls, we find that they re-
semble Eburne types or differ from types of
which we have information; then by all
means I think more data should be secured
from Stanwood. If however the skulls are of
no particular interest, then there is nothing
that I know of to lead us to return to
Stanwood more than to many other places.
(Smith to Boas, 19 August 1899, AMNH)

In spite of Boas' desire to get more material from
Puget Sound, Smith did not return to Stanwood to
continue excavations there after he had completed
his work at Lillooet. Instead, he followed his plans to
return to North Saanich, via Eburne, to continue the
work on the cairns and shell heaps that he had started
in the previous season. Smith felt he could best ad-
dress the questions of the expedition through thor-
ough investigation of these previously explored sites.

Eburne

Toward the end of August, Smith traveled down the
Fraser River from the Lillooet-Harrison Lake area. He
stopped for a day in Vancouver and returned to the
Musqueam Reserve in an attempt to collect some of
the house posts and spindle whorls he had been un-
willing to purchase the previous year, partly because
he considered them too high in price. But Smith found
the people at Musqueam no longer interested in sell-
ing any of their objects for any price to someone who
was going to take the items out of the country. Smith
was not deterred:

At Eburne I got two carved posts for $1 5.00
each. They would not sell them last year but
I brought photos of them. I considered that
carvings from the Lower Fraser are very much
to be desired. They would not sell them to
New York even this year, but they sold them

BRIAN THOM

to an Eburne friend who turned them over to
me for cost. The Indians who had the fine
spindle whorl last year were not home so I had
that trip for naught. . . . Indians near Eburne have
been told not to sell specimens to people who
plan to take said specimens out of Canada.
(Smith to Boas, 25 August 1899, AMNH)

Through this deception, Smith was finally able to make
a collection from Musqueam. It is doubtful that the
people from Musqueam who sold their posts to Smith's
Eburne friend were ever informed of their being removed
from the country.

North Saanich

The next day, Smith left Vancouver for North Saanich
and set up his excavations there just before the end of
August. He was very interested in continuing the ex-
cavation of the cairns that had been first explored the
previous year. He excavated 30 cairns at five different
locations in the North Saanich area (Smith and Fowke
1901:65-6; AMNH 431 09-431 1 2). He also continued
his excavations of the previous year at one of the large
North Saanich shell heaps (Smith 1907:331). In Sep-
tember he received word from Boas that his archaeo-
logical fieldwork was to terminate so that the material
could be worked up back at the museum:

My present idea is, that with all the material
that you have in hand at the present time, it
would be best for you to stay here next
summer and write out what you have. I do
not believe that it is a good plan to accumu-
late more material than we can actually
manage. In that case, of course it would be
best either to do the Lillooet work this year
or to defer it until 1 901 . I wish you would be
entirely guided in these matters by your
judgement, on which I rely. I do not wish to
interfere in any way with your plans, as I
cannot judge from a distance what is best to
do. (Boas to Smith, 5 August 1899, AMNH)

Smith agreed with Boas that the coming season would
be best spent in New York:

I am glad that you feel that I ought to write
up the material in hand. I am sure that I have
much, to supplement notes, in my mind
which will shrink and become confused with
other matters if I delay writing it out too

long. It might be well to write out the matter
in shape for publication and then lay it aside.
Later after all the work on any certain
problem or place was done, changes could
be made if the later works required that the
first impressions written out be revised.
(Smith to Boas, 16 September 1899, AMNH)

With the end of the season nearing, Smith concluded
his investigations in North Saanich and returned to
Spences Bridge to meet with Teit and make a journey
into the Nicola Valley.

Nicola Lake

In the last week of September, Smith became reac-
quainted with Teit in Spences Bridge. Smith had brought
copies of his newly printed "Archaeology of Lytton"
(1 899b) to British Columbia so that he could show the
drawings of artifacts to knowledgeable elders: Baptise
from Nicola Valley; Michel from Lytton; Salicte, James,
and Charlie Tcilaxitca from Nicola Lake. These elders
provided extensive, detailed information on the uses
of the objects in Smith's book, which he included as
an appendix in his next monograph, "Archaeology of
the Thompson River Region" (Smith 1 900d:440-2).

With a week to spare before Smith had to return to
New York, Smith and Teit set out on a hike into the
somewhat remote Nicola Valley. They wished to ob-
serve and collect from a number of sites where Teit
had heard about a particular burial practice. These buri-
als were unusual in that the deceased was laid inside a
tent set up beside a steep bank, after which a rock
slide was caused, covering the grave with boulders
(Fig. 51)." The remains from these burials were very
well preserved and in some cases included impressive
copper grave goods (Smith to Boas, 30 September
1 899, AMNH). Smith and Teit also photographed the
frame of a sweat house, a "kickulie house," and a group
of people they met near the mouth of Nicola Lake
(AMNH 43100, 43101- 43102, and 43106, respec-
tively). After a week of making collections and taking
photographs of the area, they returned to Spences
Bridge. Smith packed up the last of his collections for
shipping and returned to New York.

1 56

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Smith's Contributions to Archaeology
and the Jesup Expedition

Smith spent the next eight years working at the AlVlNH
as assistant curator of archaeology, "receiving, unpacl<-
ing, cataloguing, repairing, [taking care of] installation
or storage, and the labelling of specimens, as well as
answering the questions of visitors and correspondents"
(Smith to Putnam, 23 December 1902, AMNH). The
exhibits Smith set up at the AMNH had plainly written
labels intended for the lay public, but he also made
concessions to serious scholars. He illustrated the mem-
oirs of his explorations, which he worked on in addi-
tion to his regular duties, with pieces that corresponded
to the exhibits, thus giving the fullest possible account
of the materials to the scholar.

Smith did not make any more field trips to the coast
of British Columbia under the auspices of the Jesup
Expedition. He did, however, conduct field research
for the AMNH in Yakima Valley, Washington, in 1 903
(Smith 1905, 1906a, 1906b, 1910a, 1910b) and on
the coasts of northern British Columbia and southern
Alaska in 1909 (Smith 1909a, 1910c, 1910d, 1910e,
1910f, 191 1). He continued on at the AMNH until 191 1,
when he moved to Ottawa to take up the important
position of Dominion archaeologist for the National
Museum of Canada. Over the next two decades, he
continued his field research off and on in British Colum-
bia and also conducted pioneering research in Que-
bec and Nova Scotia. He did not restrict himself to
archaeology; he also pursued ethnographic filmmak-
ing and photography, ethnobotany, and the educa-
tion of the public on Native history and culture. His
career has left a lasting legacy in these areas. ^°

Evaluating Smith's Jesup Work
Boas had determined that Smith's primary research
objective was to investigate and report on the archaeo-
logical remains of the North Pacific Coast of North
America, to shed some light on the relationships
between people of the New and Old Worlds. Boas
hoped that this information would be able to support

linguistic and ethnological evidence that was collected
by other members of the Jesup Expedition (Boas 1 902:3,
1 903). Smith's additional work in photography, physi-
cal anthropo.ogy, and ethnology also contributed to
the goals of the expedition but remain absent from
most of the publications relating to the JNPE.

Reviews of Smith's research by his peers indicate
that his work was considered important and well done
in its day. Otis T. Mason gave Smith and other Jesup
team members "hearty praise" for their research (Ma-
son 1 900:805); J. A. McCuire felt that Smith deserved
"the thanks of all students of archaeology for the thor-
ough manner in which he has performed his task"
(McCuire 1 903:552); and even Ceorge M. Dawson, who
did not like having artifacts and human remains leave
Canada, congratulated Smith for "illustrating the archae-
ology of this interesting locality" (Dawson 1899:767).
These reviewers all concurred that Smith had done well
in his first task, the description of the archaeology of
British Columbia and Washington.

How did this archaeological work address the
questions posed by the Jesup Expedition? Smith inter-
preted his archaeological collections found in the inte-
rior of British Columbia as reflecting cultures that were,
by and large, the same as those of the present-day
inhabitants (Smith 1899b: 161, 1 900d:432-3). For the
coastal regions, his published interpretations state the
same general point: that "the finds indicate that the
prehistoric people whose remains are found in these
shell-heaps had a culture resembling in most of its fea-
tures that of the present natives of the Eraser Delta"
(Smith 1903:188). Smith found the artifacts and art-
work of the lower levels of the shell heaps to be al-
most identical to those of the upper levels.

Confusion about Smith's interpretation of the
coastal material persist. Smith, following Boas' hypoth-
esis, makes a case for there having been at some point
in the past a replacement of the early coastal inhabit-
ants by people from the interior (Smith 1903:190,
1 907:438-9). The main basis for this interpretation was
the replacement of the long-skull people by the broad-

BRIAN THOM

1 57

skull people, as discussed by Boas (cited in Smith
1903:189). Smith looked for further support for Boas'
hypothesis by pointing out similarities in chipped points,
tubular pipes, and geometric designs on objects found
on the coast and in the interior (Smith 1 903:1 90).

In his own publications, Boas also cites Smith's evi-
dence as supporting his ideas about a Salish migration
from the interior. The disappearance of stone flaking,
the two distinct types of skulls, and the change of
burial practices from cairns and mounds to tree burials
all indicated this migration of people into the region
(Boas 1902, 1905:96). Boas asserted that the migra-
tion came from the interior because longer skulls "are
decidedly more [common] with the people of the in-
terior and of the Columbia River than with the present
inhabitants of the Coast of British Columbia" (Boas 1 902,
1940:528). The interior invasion group was "in later
times assimilated by the northern coast tribes in bodily
form as well as culture." Making much out of little evi-
dence, Boas cited Smith's brief work in the Puget Sound
area as showing "that there was a gradual merging of
the ancient culture of this area into that of the Colum-
bia Valley, thus agreeing with the ethnological results
obtained by Professor Farrand" (Boas 1 903:90).

Smith was clearly influenced by Boas in presenting
his model for the migration of people from the interior
to the coast (Robinson 1 976). His interpretations were
always cautious and tended to defer to Boas, both in
the field and in his publications. This best example of
this is that Smith's letters discuss the great many "in-
termediate types" of skulls coming out of the shell
heaps, but the official publications by both Smith and
Boas characterize the skulls as falling into only two
types (Smith to Boas, 16 May, 3 June 1898, AMNH).
Beattie recently summarized the debate on long-skulls
and broad-skulls, showing that there is little physical
evidence to support this kind of grouping (Beattie
1 985). Confusion about this issue might not have arisen
had Boas heeded Smith's intuition about the difficul-
ties in creating two distinct "types" out of a great num-
ber of intermediate specimens.

1 58

Smith's collections of skeletons, photographs, and
plaster casts provided further information with which
to address the historical relationships between the
peoples of the North Pacific Rim. While the Jesup
Expedition was under way. Boas cited this material as
evidence that the "types of man" living in each geo-
graphic region of British Columbia were distinct, yet
historically connected (Boas 1903:74). Smith's collec-
tions of skeletal remains were left unanalyzed for 20
years until Bruno Oetteking undertook the project dur-
ing and after World War I. Oetteking took careful mea-
surements of the skulls and found several different
methods of cranial deformation that corresponded gen-
erally to different language groups of the Northwest
Coast (Oetteking 1930; see alsojantz 1995).

With a few exceptions— notably, a short album of
Smith's pictures showing typical profiles of people from
the Thompson, Shuswap, and Lillooet communities
(Boas 1900) and a plate published by Boas showing
Tsimshian, Haida, KwakiutI, Nootka, Thompson, and
Quinault "Indian types" of the Northwest Coast (Boas
1 903:83)— Smith's photographs and his ethnological
collections were not included in the Jesup Expedition
monographs.

Smith's few ethnological publications (Smith
1 91 Od, 1 91 Of, 1 91 1 ) do not discuss in detail the kinds
of information he obtained and recorded in his letters
and notes. The few notes from his correspondence
presented here, and the lists of names and communi-
ties in his photograph records, provide some limited
insight into the communities in which he worked. His
field notes, now missing, would reveal more material
of this nature, if they were to be found.

Archaeologist as Collaborator
Smith's relationships with the Native communities he
studied had a profound influence on how his investi-
gations proceeded and on his final descriptions and
interpretations of the archaeological remains. Through
Boas, Smith had connections with James Teit in Spences
Bridge, Father Le Jeune in Kamloops, and George Hunt

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

in Fort Rupert. This network of people around Boas
gave Smith a unique opportunity for research, while
limiting him to the areas Boas was interested in.

In the Thompson River area, Smith was able to draw
on the excellent community contacts of James Teit
and Father Le Jeune. His reports from this area are par-
ticularly rich in descriptions of the functions of objects
and the history of the sites he visited. Good relations
with the community produced better archaeological
results. In his work with George Hunt on the Central
Coast, Smith gained access to large ethnological pur-
chases. However, the community's good will toward
Smith was not always well repaid, particularly in the
matter of grave digging.

This tenuous rapport can be contrasted with Smith's
work in the lower Fraser River and southeastern
Vancouver Island regions, where he had no such con-
tacts. His descriptions of the archaeological materials
from these areas are based largely on his own knowl-
edge of the finds and draw heavily on information ob-
tained by Teit from people in the interior. He confined
his archaeological investigations in these areas to off-
reserve sites, where he could work on land owned by
non-Natives. When he did try to excavate on reserve in
Duncan, he was unable to obtain permission from the
Native leaders. As he could only communicate in En-
glish or with his limited knowledge of Chinook, he had
a difficult time explaining what he wanted to do or
recording what Native people tried to tell him about
their traditional way of life. The most extreme case of
Smith's lack of community contacts was in Lillooet,
where he chose to excavate burials at night, knowing
that community members would not have approved.
This later came back to haunt him, as he could not
return to the area as Boas had wished.

Collaboration with people who had long-term re-
lationships with the Native communities in which Smith
was interested also opened opportunities for taking
photographs and making plaster casts. Teit, Le Jeune,
and Hunt all explained to community members what
Smith wanted to do and introduced him to people

who were willing to take part. They provided him with
detailed information on the families and backgrounds
of the people he photographed and cast. Notes on
most of the pictures of people that Smith took on his
own tend not to include any details about the subject
other than linguistic affiliation. In the case of the
Central Coast Salish communities on the lower Fraser
River and southeastern Vancouver Island, Smith was
unable to take any pictures or make casts of people,
regardless of the payment he offered. An opportunity
to work with people in this area might have provided
insights into the problem of the historical relationship
between the Interior and Coast Salish groups.

Contemporary Reflections on Smith 's Jesup
World

Long after the questions of the Jesup Expedition have
been reexamined. Smith's work continues to be rel-
evant. Native people today are concerned about the
relationship of anthropologists to their communities,
as research continues to raise issues such as repatria-
tion, local control over cultural resources, and the
authority of non-Native scholars to interpret Native
culture. The growing interest in the revival of traditional
cultural practices is another area in which modern
anthropologists interact with local communities.

A particularly important lesson is the difference be-
tween "access" to a field site and "acceptance" by the
community of the research being done. Gatekeepers
like Hunt may not always be spokespersons for the
community at large, but they ultimately have to bear
the consequences of the researchers' actions long af-
ter the fieldwork is over. Whereas Smith could simply
continue his research without returning to Fort Rupert,
the trouble surrounding his visit had more serious re-
percussions for Hunt and Boas, who wished to con-
tinue living and working in that community. In the case
of Smith's work in Lillooet, the community members
who did not protest his grave digging would have
had to answer to the rest of the community when
those who had been absent returned.

BRIAN THOM

1 59

A second lesson has to do with the frustration Smith
endured in trying to gain access to Coast Salish com-
munities to excavate, take photographs, make casts,
and purchase ritual objects. There is a striking absence
in Smith's correspondence with Boas of any attempt
to understand why people were unwilling to collabo-
rate with him. Being able to engage in a dialogue, as
both Le Jeune and Hunt had done, may have moved
his work forward, or at least saved him time and effort.
However, Smith's and Boas' research strategy of mak-
ing general surveys of the broad region prevented Smith
from building the kind of rapport that would make this
kind of dialogue possible. When the research ques-
tions are as grand as those proposed by Boas for the
Jesup Expedition, a team approach, with specialists in
each community where work is being done, is clearly
preferable.

Finally, Smith's work on thejesup Expedition leaves
the current generation of anthropologists and archae-
ologists with the dilemma of what to do about collec-
tions made under questionable circumstances. Repa-
triation of skeletal remains collected in secret or with
inadequate permission may now be appropriate.
Clearly, as regards the house post given by Chief
Nuxwhailak, the AMNH must honor his request by prop-
erly labeling it for the public. The house posts acquired
through Smith's Eburne friend pose a more difficult prob-
lem. Should they have been collected even though
Smith and Boas both knew that sending them over
the Canadian border was against the Musqueam
people's wishes? Would it have been better to have
left them to rot or burn, like so many other Coast Salish
artworks of that era?

The answers to these questions are not clear. I would
suggest that the answers lie in the ongoing relation-
ship between the AMNH and the Native communities
whose collections it holds. The Musqueam house posts
are now among the very few photographed or pre-
served from this region and have been highly instruc-
tive for the current generation of carvers. A good ex-
ample is Susan Point's interpretation of some of these

Musqueam posts for the artworks she created for
the Vancouver Airport. Access to and interpretation
of these collections may ultimately be an end that can
justify the means. Thus, the legacy of Harlan I. Smith's
sometimes problematic work for the Jesup North Pa-
cific Expedition can have continuing relevance for Na-
tive communities and the public at large.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the American Museum of Natural
History for the Collections Study Grant I received in
1 993 to work on the Harlan I. Smith material. Anibal
Rodriguez was particularly helpful with obtaining the
correspondence from the accession records. William
Fitzhugh and Igor Krupnik at the Smithsonian Institu-
tion offered much encouragement and valuable com-
ments on the creation and the subsequent refinement
of this paper. The late Douglas Cole also provided valu-
able comments and suggestions on the final drafts.
The University of British Columbia's Travel Bursary sub-
sidized an early presentation of the paper at the 1 994
meetings of the American Society for Ethnohistory in
Tempe. Finally, I thank my friend Lynn Vanderwekken,
who read endless drafts and who gave me so much
of her time while I was working on this paper.

Notes

1. The following publications were a direct
result of Smith's fieldwork for the Jesup North Pa-
cific Expedition: Boas 1897, 1900; Smith 1898a,
1898b, 1899a, 1899b, 1899c, 1 899d, 1900a,
1900b, 1900c, 1900d, 1 900e, 1901a, 1901b,
1901c, 1902, 1903, 1904a, 1904b, 1904c,
1 904d, 1 906c, 1 907, 1 909b, 1 91 Od, 1 91 1 ; Smith
and Fowke 1 901 . For a more complete bibliogra-
phy of Smith's works, see Leechman 1 949.

2. Smith's correspondence is in AMNH, Acc.
1897-27, 1898-41, 1899-3.

3. Smith's photograph catalogue at the
AMNH records the profiles of people from Spences
Bridge as AMNH 1 1646-1 1685 and 22634-22695.
Smith also photographed sweat houses (AMNH
42754-42755), rock paintings and story rocks

1 60

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

161

48/ House post collected by Smith at Musqueam, British Columbia, 1 898,
given as "part gift" to the AMNH by Chief Nuxwhailak (AMNH 16/4652)

50/ Grave post called "Laxtot," at Comox, British Columbia, 1 898. Harlan I. Smith, photographer (AMNH 43022)

165

1 66

52/ Map of the Kwakwaka'wakw area in the early 19th century, with Turnour Island and Clio Channel
shown as the enlarged area (adapted from Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 7, 1994)

53/ Sketch of K'odi's copper by George Hunt, 1 92 1 (APS)

1 68

54/ Site plan of Fort Rupert (Tsaxis) as it was in ca. 1 865. Drawing by George Hunt, 1919 (APS)

169

1 70

55/ Fort Rupert (Tsaxis),
probably 1 865 or earlier.
Photographer unknown.
HBCA, Provincial Ar-
chives of Manitoba
1 987/3 6 3-F-57/1
(Nl 1778)

Each of the following images of Tsaxis shows the site from a different angle. This earliest image (Fig. 55), was
taken from the east side of the stream mouth and the fort, near the front of House 1 8 (as numbered in Hunt's
"1866" site plan). Next image (Fig. 56) was painted looking north toward the ocean from the higher ground
behind the fort. Finally, the third image (Fig. 57) was shot in 1 881 from the west end of Tsaxis, probably from the
site earlier occupied by Houses 16 and 1 7.

1 71

55/ Fort Rupert (Tsaxis),
probably 1 865 or earlier.
Photographer unknown.
HBCA, Provincial Ar-
chives of Manitoba
1 9 8 7/3 6 3-F-57/1
(N1 1778)

Each of the following images of Tsaxis shows the site from a different angle. This earliest image (Fig. 55), was
Jsken from the east side of the stream mouth and the fort, near the front of House 1 8 (as numbered in Hunt's
866 site plan). Next image (Fig. 56) was painted looking north toward the ocean from the higher ground
' ind the fort. Finally, the third image (Fig. 57) was shot in 1 881 from the west end of Tsaxis, probably from the
^ite earlier occupied by Houses 1 6 and 1 7.

171

56/ Watercolor of Fort Rupert, May 8, 1 866. Artist unknown. HBCA, Provincial Archives of Manitoba,
P-111(N5296)

1 72

1 73

58/ Killer whale mask. Reprinted from Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895
(Boas 1897:628)

59/ Tlingit seal bowl, southern Alaska (SI 23409)

c R A c r; o ^ ^

JOHNSTONE

64. e'e'Bg'es sandy beaches

65. md'xmExas place of eating

killer whales

66. 'nu>£'tnii2«na'/i« round things

(islands) in front at beach

67. '♦n€'mfciif»to round things (is-

lands) in front at beach

68. ts.'ena'ts/' elderberry recep-

tacle

69. t'SkJwa stiff (oil, curdled

blood) on rock

70. d'gwdx'tEHoe' head of pass-

age

71. dozlud

72. 'ya' x'p.'SsdesEla bad smel)

coming up from beach

73. dzEq!uxad muddy through

(clam beach near qa'lo-
qwia)

74. ki'nHoaas place of thunder-

bird on rock

75. qd'logwia bent beach

76. dBg-a'WeU iJe'sElag-i'la

mink's burial place

77. x'd'ta/a'dze'li's having great

ebb tide

78. q.'d'be'

79. ddap.'aviUeigeoi'tm'laskiod'-

g-iil

80. gu'mbEx

81. laif l^Elc'wa' burnt rocks

82. k-a'qoLi' canoes meeting on

water

83. q!6' gwadiUte' point having

shelter

84. nS'mae old man, i. e. sea

monster; name of many
dangerous points

85. dwi'iJa'la rocky place

stretching inward

86. oxut'li's beach at hind end

87. g-aUtExijdHi'a long behind

end beach

88. 5' juoi'te^e'head of passage

89. aS x'sE'wak'' paddled

through

90. g-d' x^difma house site on

ground

91. hang'- hollow thing at rest

92. Le'qida canoe building place

on rock

93. t'd'z"<«.'d small, round open-
ing inside

96. dEx sEma' la grave on sur-

face

97. d' LEgEmd'la facing inland

98. q/wa'ld' ixu place of hiding

the cedar bark bedding
of cradles

99. 'mif x'stEwe' round thing

(island) in small hole or
opening

100. dc'wiietwMplaceof rumbling

noise. Baronet Passage

101. td'mlElda trembling point

102. bsklua'd having man-of-

the-ground, (i. e. a fa-
bulous people)

103. Ic-.'sq/iidzifm young cedars

on surface

104. k.'ive' dadV having barnacles

105. d' LEgEtnala facing inlcmd

106. ma'xds killer whale plsuie ( ?)

107. dzE'riibax'

108. nd' LEweg'a'laaf turn back

to back on rock

109. md'taleq stripe in hole

110. ts.'d'yade' having eelgrass

111. q/d'q.'Ux'Ld'Hu shallow

beaches at* head

112. le'dzadEx gwE'yt'm having

finding of whales

113. Hnsgwi'lbala island being

on point

114. k\'d'k\'E^ndlia young ce-

dars on side of beach

115. 6' x'stUesEla beach continu-

ing through

116. h!ok!wa put up on edge on

rock

117. vmxedaU!'

118. ^maE'mx'he' round things

(islands) at point

119. x d'Huap/Ex-dE^i's open

neck place on beach

120. tm'wUngEnol deep sides

121. 'nd'le wd^x'diad up river

iD<^x'dzad

122. tss'lx'mEdzes crabapple

trees on beach

123. Lld'dzis alder beach

124. lEml'alU trembling beach

60/ Map of Turnour Island, Clio Channel, and vicinity showing Kwakwaka'wakw historical villages ca. 1 840
and a sample of the site names related to this area (from Boas 1 934)

1 76

(AMNH 42756-42766), a fire drill being used
(AMNH 42769-42771), and a storage house
(AMNH A2777).

4. Profiles of people from Kamloops are cata-
logued as AMNH 42745-42755, 22696-22708,
1 1691.

5. The photograph numbers for Baby Rosie
(7 months old) are AMNH 42801-42805; for an
unnamed baby, AMNH 42811-42814; for the
"Kikulie house ruins," 4281 5-4281 6.

6. AMNH 42825-42826 and 11692-11805.
Most of the people noted in the photograph cata-
logue are listed by name and by where the indi-
vidual is from.

7. These Heiltsuk people, also all named in
the catalogue, appear in AMNH 1 1 806-1 1817 and
42828-42851. The house is shown in AMNH
42852-42857.

8. People from Rivers Inlet are listed by name
in AMNH 42862-42885.

9. These skull types are illustrated in Smith
1903:189, 1904c:90.

1 0. Photographs of these cairns are listed as
AMNH 42786-42800.

1 1 . These people, some named and some
not, are listed in the photograph catalogue by
the community they were from and their age
(AMNH 1 1818-1 1836).

1 2. An excellent photograph of this encoun-
ter was published in the Ethnographical Album of
the North Pacific Coasts of America and Asia {^oas
1900). Photograph record numbers are AMNH
42930, 42945, and 43001. See also Mathe and
Miller, this volume; and Figs. 37-38, this volume.

13. The woman digging roots is shown in
AMNH 42947 and 42957 (Fig. 36, this volume);
the tepee structure is shown in AMNH 42931,
42946, and 42948.

14. Pictures of tepees are listed in AMNH
42932, 42938, and 42941 ; a picture of the sweat
house appears in AMNH 42943.

15. Pictures of these excavations include
those of human remains (AMNH 42928, 42929,
and 42934) and general pictures of the archaeo-
logical deposits (AMNH 42927, 42964, 42965,
42975, 42976, and 42995).

1 6. The pictures of these posts are described
in the photograph catalogue at AMNH 42922,
42923, 42924, 42933, 42936, 42937, 42939,
42940, 42942, and 42944.

17. Smith lists the people photographed by
name and community in AMNH 11853-11903.

1 8. Potlatch, AMNH 42967 and 42968; gam-
bling, AMNH 42970 and 42999; women's pot-
latch, AMNH 42992; totem poles and house posts,
AMNH 11905-11907, 42969, and 42991; cop-
pers, AMNH 42984; old man with adze, AMNH
42986-42990 and 42994.

1 9. Pictures of the shell middens investigated
appear in AMNH 42949, 42950, 42952, 42955,
42956, 42958, 42959, 42972-42974, 42979-
42983, and 43000; a number of rock carvings
were also photographed (AMNH 42953, 42962,
42971 , 42978, and 43002).

20. Smith's photographs of these tree buri-
als include AMNH 42951, 42960, 42961, and
42993.

21 . Stocking cites this letter as having been
written by Boas to Hunt, 3 February 1899.

22. Some of these burials are pictured in
AMNH 43022-43026. Smith and Hunt recorded
the name of the first of these (AMNH 43022), a
grave post, as "Laxktot" and noted that it was
"used at potlatch probably as representative of
speaker."

23. The posts were photographed by Smith
and are listed as AMNH 43022, 43025, 43026,
and 43027. Smith wrote to Boas (using letters that
refer to a diagram not reproduced here):

I have tried to get posts that were made by
Comox people, but I fear northern artists
were employed and that northern art shows
in some of them. You will be pleased to learn
that I secured a story of a flood as an
explanation of four of the posts. One post (A)
represents a man who made a very long
rope of cedar bark. At the time of the flood
he took his family, friends, and some animals
in his canoe, which he tied to the top of a
high mountain by means of this rope. One
post (C) represents his friends, another (D)
(having a copper carved on it) his wealth,
etc, a fourth (E) represents a beaver, perhaps
a totem or perhaps simply a tame animal and
another friend who represents the carrying
aboard of children, etc. . . . One post (F) that
was gone represented a bird and other men.
I hope to learn more about these and settle a
few points, then I will have the full story to
go with the poles which, as you say, makes
them ten times as valuable. . . .

B, now gone, was a figure of a person like A,
but of lesser power. One of the posts from

BRIAN THOM

1 77

another house representing a dead man of
influence, has a hole in the mouth through
which a man spoke. I got all the information I
could regarding each pole, but often I find
the Indians do not know as well as I. One
young woman told me the beaver was a
man, but afterwards I found a more intelli-
gent person. (1 August 1898, AMNH)

Of course, from the mythological point of view,
animals were in a sense human, and could trans-
form back and forth. Smith's arrogance may have
cost him a finer understanding of the stories be-
hind these poles.

24. See also the photographs and descrip-
tions of this site in Smith 1 907:323-30 and AMNH
43016-43018.

25. Photographs of objects from the museum
are numbered AMNH 43033-43041 and 12063-
12073.

26. Smith's correspondence from the end of
May to the end of August is almost entirely un-
available from the AMNH accession records. There
are, however, two letters that Boas wrote to Smith
in the field in the 1899 AMNH accession records.

27. Smith's archaeological findings are well
reported in Smith 1907:367-402 and are briefly
outlined in Smith 1 900a.

28. The photographs show a Nisqually man
and a woman sewing a mat in Stanwood: AMNH
1211 7-12120 and 121 34.

29. Some of these burials are pictured in
AMNH 43103-43105.

30. For a complete bibliography of Smith's
work, see Leechman 1 949. Wintemberg (1 940) pro-
vides an excellent obituary and summary of
Smith's research.

References
Ames, Kenneth

1 994 The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gather-
ers, Ecology, and Social Evolution. Annual Review of
Anthropology 23:209-29.

Beattie, Owen

1 985 A Note on Early Cranial Studies from the Gulf of
Georgia Region: Long-Heads, Broad-Heads and the
Myth of Migration. BC Studies 66 (summer):28-36.

Boas, Franz

1 897 Thejesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast.

Science, n.s. 7(1 45):535-8.
1 898 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In The Jesup

North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 1-12.

Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory, 2. New York.
1 900 Ethnographical Album of the North Pacific Coasts
of America and Asia: Jesup North Pacific Expedition.
New York: American Museum of Natural History.

1902 Some Problems in North American Archaeol-
ogy. American Journal of Archaeology, Second Se-
ries 6:1-6. Reprinted in Boas 1940: 525-9.

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American
Museum Journal 3(5):73-l 1 9.

1905 Thejesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-
tional Congress of Americanists, 1 3th Session, Held
in New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:
Eschenbach.

1 940 Race, Language, and Culture. New York:

Macmillan. Reprint: Free Press, 1 966.
Cole, Douglas

1 985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest
Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.

Dawson, George

1 899 Review of Archaeology of Lytton, British Colum-
bia. American Anthropologist, n.s. 1:765-8.

Hill-Tout, Charles.

1978 The Salish People: The Local Contribution of
Charles Hill-Tout, vol. 4. The Sechelt and the South-
Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Island. Ralph Maud, ed.
Vancouver: Talonbooks. Original edition, 1 899.

Jantz, Richard L

1 995 Franz Boas and Native American Biological Vari-
ability. Human Biology 67(3)345-53.
Leechman, Douglas

1 949 Bibliography of Harlan I. Smith. In National Mu-
seum of Canada, Bulletin 1 12. Annual Report of the
National Museum, 1939-1940. Pp. 8-14. Ottawa.

Mason, J. Alden

1 943 Franz Boas as an Archeologist. In Franz Boas,
1858-1942. American Anthropological Association
Memoirs, 61 . Pp. 58-66.

Mason, Otis T.

1900 /?eweiv of Anthropological Publications of the
American Museum of Natural History, New York, in
1900. Science 1 2(308):804-6.

Matson, R. G., and Gary Coupland

1 995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. New

York: Academic Press.
McGuire, J. D.

1 903 Review of Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River,
British Columbia. American Anthropologist, n.s.
5:552-3.

Moss, Madonna, and John Eriandson

1 995 Reflections of North American Pacific Coast Pre-
history. 7owr/i<3/ of World Prehistory9i] ):1 -45.
Oetteking, Bruno

1 930 Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 11, pt. 1 , pp. 1-371 .

1 78

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Memoirs of the American Museum of American tiis-
tory, 1 5. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York; C. E. Stechert.
Robinson, Ellen W.

1 976 Harlan I. Smith, Boas, and the Salish: Unweaving
Archaeological Hypotheses. Northwest Anthropo-
logical Research Notes 1 0(2): 1 85-96.

Rohner, Ronald P., ed.

1 969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-
ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coast
from 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Smith, Harlan I.

n.d. Report of Operations of Harlan I. Smith on the
Jesup North Pacific Coast Expedition, for the Year
1 898. Manuscript. American Museum of Natural His-
tory, New York.

1 898a The Jesup Expedition Collection. American An-
tiquarian and Oriental Journal 20: 101-4.

1 898b The Natural History Museums of British Colum-
bia. Science, n.s. 8(201 ):61 9-20.

1 899a Archaeological Investigations on the North
Pacific Coast of America. Science, n.s. 9(224):535-9.

1 899b The Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia.
In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 3,
pp. 1 29-61 . Memoirs of the American Museum of
Natural History, 2. New York.

1 899c How to Take Life Masks. Popular Science News
3:31.

1 899d Stone Hammers or Pestles of the Northwest
Coast of America. American Anthropologist, n.s.
1:363-8.

1900a Archaeological Investigations on the North
Pacific Coast in 1 899. American Anthropologist, n.s.
2(3):563-7.

1 900b Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Monu-
mental Records 1:76-88.

1 900c Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Sci-
entific American Supplement 50:20538-41 .

1 900d Archaeology of the Thompson River Region,
British Columbia. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedi-
tion, vol. 1 , pt. 6, pp. 401 -42. Memoirs of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History, 2. New York.

1 900e The Cairns of British Columbia and Washington.
In Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Forty-ninth Meeting. Pp.
313-5.

1901a The Archaeology of the Southern Interior of
British Columbia. American Antiquarian and Oriental
7ot/rMo/23:25-31.

1901b Prehistoric British Columbia. Popular Science
News 25:14.

1 901 c The Prehistoric Ethnology of the Thompson River
Region. In Report of the Michigan Academy of Sci-
ences, 2. Pp. 8-10. Ann Arbor.

1 902 Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Records
of the Post 1:205-18.

1 903 Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, British
Columbia. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol.
2, pt. 4, pp. 1 33-91 . Memoirs of the American Mu-
seum of Natural History, 4. New York.

1904a The Cairns or Stone Sepulchres of British Co-
lumbia. Records of the Past 3:243-54.

1904b Shell Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, British
Col u m bia. American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal
26:235-6.

1 904c Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, British
Columbia. Records of the Past 3:79-90.

1 904d Shell Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, British
Columbia. Scientific American Supplement
58:24024-6.

1905 An Archaeological Expedition to the Columbia
Valley. Records of the Past 4:1 1 9-27.

1906a Noteworthy Archaeological Specimens from
Lower Columbia Valley. American Anthropologist,
n.s. 8:298-307.

1 906b Preliminary Notes on the Archaeology of the
Yakima Valley, Washington. Science 23:551-5.

1 906c A Remarkable Pipe from Northwestern America.
American Anthropologist, n.s. 8:33-8.

1 907 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget
Sound. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2,
pt. 6, pp. 301-441. Memoirs of the American Mu-
seum of Natural History, 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York:
G. E. Stechert.

1 909a Archaeological Remains on the Coast of North-
ern British Columbia and Southern Alaska. American
Anthropologist 1 1 : 595-600.

1 909b New Evidence of the Distribution of Chipped
Artifacts and Interior Culture in British Columbia.
American Anthropologist 1 1 : 3 59-61 .

1910a Ancient Methods of Burial in the Yakima Val-
ley, Washington. /4mer;ca/i Antiquarian and Oriental
Journal 12{2)A 11-3.

1 91 Ob The Archaeology of the Yakima Valley. In An-
thropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, 6. Pp. 1-171. New York.

1910c British Columbia and Alaska. In Anthropologi-
cal Papers of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory, 4. Pp. 298-9. New York.

1 91 Od Canoes of the Northern Pacific Coast Indians.
American Museum Journal 1 0(8):243-5.

1 91 Oe A Visit to the Indian Tribes of the Northwest
Coast. American Museum Journal 10:31-42.

191 Of Wooden Monuments of the Northwest Coast
Indians. Scientific American Supplement 69:248-9.

1911 Totem Poles of the North Pacific Coast. Ameri-
can Museum Journal 1 1(3):77-82.

Smith, Harlan I., and Gerald Fowke

1901 Cairns of British Columbia and Washington. In
The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp.
55-75. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-
ral History, 4. New York.

BRIAN THOM

1 79

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1 974 The Shaping of American Anthropology,
1883-191 1: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Ba-
sic Books.

Teit, James

1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. In
The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 , pt. 4, pp.
1 63-392. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-
ral History, 2. New York.

Thorn, Brian

2000 Precarious Rapport: Harlan I. Smith and the Jesup

North Pacific Expedition. European Review of Native

American Studies 14(2):3-10.
Who Was Who in America,
1942 Vol. 1. Chicago: A. N. Marquis.
Wintemberg, W. J.

1940 Harlan Ingersoll Smith. American Antiquity
6(l):63-4.

York, Annie, Richard Daly, and Chris Arnett

1 993 They Write Their Dreams on the Rock Forever:
Rock Writings in the Stein River Valley of British Co-
lumbia. Vancouver: Talonbooks.

1 80

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

(Jnpubiishec! fviaterials of j^ranz ^oas
and (jj^orge Munt

/\ j^ecord of -^-^ Ljears of coliaboration
JUDITH BERMAN

Franz Boas, head of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition,
was an indefatigable collector of information on the
Native peoples of the North Pacific Coast and pub-
lished many thousands of pages containing a variety
of information on these peoples. Thousands more
pages, however, remain in the archives, virtually un-
known. These unpublished materials are of consider-
able importance, filling gaps in Boas' published record
and inviting fundamental reassessments of some as-
pects of his work and of the culture and history of the
Native peoples he studied.

This chapter on Boas' unpublished North Pacific
materials covers only ethnographic, linguistic, and
ethnohistorical documents and drawings. It does not
discuss his material culture collections, photographs,
and phonograph recordings or his physical-anthropol-
ogy research. This tighter focus allows a more in-depth
treatment of materials produced not only during the
period of the Jesup Expedition (1897-1902) but also
during the years 1 894-1 942, encompassing the greater
part of Boas' professional life.

The greater part of the unpublished materials in
Boas' papers was generated in the course of his 45-
year collaboration (1888-1933) with George Hunt.
Hunt, the son of a Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) em-
ployee and a Tlingit noblewoman, married into the
Kwakwaka'wakw community at Fort Rupert, British
Columbia, and lived most of his life there. Boas hired
and trained Hunt to undertake a wide variety of la-
bors, including the assembly of substantial museum

collections. Hunt was responsible, for example, for all
the ethnographic material culture collections of the
Jesup Expedition for the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI]
and Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka] areas (Fig. 52). Of inter-
est here, however, is the ethnographic, folkloric, and
linguistic research that Hunt performed for Boas. The
unpublished materials resulting from their collabora-
tion number perhaps 10,000 manuscript pages. Only
the most important of the manuscripts that have been
identified are considered here.

With one exception— an important document in
private hands— the manuscripts considered here are in
the three primary repositories for Boas' papers: the
American Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadelphia,
where the bulk of his professional papers was placed
after his death; the Anthropology Archives of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York,
which contain records from the years 1896-1905,
when Boas was employed there (Cole 1 985:1 40, 1 64);
and the Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript
Library, where Boas himself deposited a number of
manuscripts. (See Appendix A to this chapter for a list
of the individual collections, with the abbreviations for
them used here.)

The Unpublished Volume "KwakiutI
Texts"

During his lifetime. Boas published 1 1 volumes filled
largely or exclusively with Kwak'wala language texts
written by Hunt (Boas 1909, 1910, 1921, 1925, 1930,

1 81

1935, 1943; Boas and Hunt 1905, 1906). Boas' pa-
pers include an additional complete text volume that
exists in two forms: as a collection of Hunt manuscripts
at Columbia University (CU-Hunt xiv) and as a type-
script prepared from those manuscripts, with Boas'
added translations, at the American Philosophical
Society (APS-KTT, see Appendix A). Boas evidently
intended to publish the volume but did not manage
to do so before his death. Together with the texts in
Religion of the Kwal<iutl (Boas 1 930) and another
unpublished set of Hunt's manuscripts that will be ex-
amined later in this chapter, this unpublished volume
represents the bulk of Boas' and Hunt's ethnographic
labors in the final decade of their collaboration.

Boas' final typescript volume of KwakiutI texts is
an important supplement to the published record on
the 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw. It also provides a
more complete picture of Boas' ethnographic goals,
revealing that he was interested in a much wider range
of topics than had been recognized.

The volume contains a variety of text materials,
most of them produced after 1 920. One portion con-
sists of a series of speeches delivered on various
public occasions, including those given at feasts and
at the Winter Ceremonial. A slightly larger section is
devoted to informal conversations, ranging from
marital quarrels to a discussion about plant roots be-
tween two old basketmakers. Hunt transcribed these
conversations in response to Boas' request that he
collect some "ordinary, everyday conversations ... for
instance like anything you might say to your wife or to
your friends" (Boas to Hunt, 1 5 December 1927, APS-
BPC; see also Boas to Hunt, 1 8 January 1 928).

Boas apparently felt a need to add to the range of
speech genres and subject matter represented in the
texts he had already edited and published. As he had
written earlier in regard to linguistic research in North
America, "Up to this time too little attention has been
paid to the variety of expression. . .we have hardly any
records of daily occurrences, everyday conversa-
tion. . .and the like" (Boas 1 940a:200-l ). Boas' neglect

1 82

of the "informal" culture of the Kwakwaka'wakw has
been commented on (Codere 1966:xvi; Ray 1980),
but the problem was clearly not absent from his mind.

The volume also contains a number of explanatory
and narrative texts that are more typical of Hunt's work
but that cover specific topics not dealt with elsewhere.
These include texts on medicines and on methods of
and customs relating to fishing, hunting, and food gath-
ering. One of the lattertexts is a brief discussion of the
taboos observed in relation to the six kinds of fish
that the Kwakwaka'wakw "treated clean" (a'ikila):
oolachan, halibut, and four species of salmon (sock-
eye, king, coho, and dog).' As Hunt's interlinear English
(in his own orthography) states,

they Dont let the . . . young women who
have the first monthly Eat any of these . . .
fishes ... [if] have the monthly [the] wife of
the salmon fisher ...[,] the Husband ... go
carry the suck Eye in[to] the House of his
Relative for her to Roast it. and they Dont let
the wife of his Eat some of it whele she got
the monthly, and as soon as she Done . . .
then she wash herself . . . and . . . then she
Eat the Roasted salmon ... if [the young
woman] Eat the Roasted salmon . . then it
would Disappear . . . and her Father . . .
would get into some trouble [ialawafid,
"get into difficulties"] . . . and when they . . .
finish Eating the six Defferent kind of fishes,
then Right away then the woman go gather
up the skin not Eaten and the Bones and she
go walk out to the salt water and she throw
it into the water . . . [and also] the Entrails
and the Blood on the mat they cut the
salmon on . . . [to be] washed off . . . in salt
water, for it is not allowed the Dog to eat
[anything] that came from the six Defferent
kind of fishes when it is first caught for . . .
[the fish] would Right away Desappear. (CU-
Hunt xiv:4359-61)

This text is the only one in the Boas-Hunt cor-
pus to discuss fish ceremonialism among the Kwak-
waka'wakw in any comprehensive way. It omits, how-
ever, topics that Hunt briefly touches on elsewhere—
for example, the prayers addressed to the first salmon
to arrive and to any salmon after it is caught, or the
resuscitation of the salmon after its skin, bones, and
entrails are placed in salt water (CU-Hunt xiv:391 9-33;

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Boas 1921:246, 609-612; Boas and Hunt 1905:307,
390-2). These short texts show that fish ceremonial-
ism—that is, the ritual, prayer, and taboos surrounding
the catching, preparation, and eating of certain spe-
cies offish and the disposal of the remains afterward—
was pervasive in 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw life.
Given that the ritual and taboos applied to fish that
were caught and preserved in huge numbers in order
to provide year-round food staples, these texts sug-
gest that fish ceremonialism was the most fundamen-
tal form of ritual activity at this time, carried out daily
by women in every household. Because of this, the
texts cast light on other areas of religious expression,
particularly on the far more spectacular Winter Ceremo-
nial, which seems to use the spiritual ecology offish as
its root metaphor (Berman 1991:659-702; 2000).

Other texts in the volume show that Boas and Hunt
were interested in the margins of gender among the
19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw. One text tells of
women who have taken men's names and positions in
the potlatch system and who thereby "turn into men"
("babEbagwExats!edaq"; CU-Huntxiv:41 35-6). Another
recounts a "sham marriage" in which a chief turned his
only child, a son, into a "woman on one side" and then
gave the "woman half of his son in marriage to an-
other chief as a fictive daughter. Still another discusses
Kwakwaka'wakw transvestites.

The volume also contains unique texts on an
assortment of other topics, including a rare descrip-
tion of the great feast pipes of the Kwakwaka'wakw,
which were smoked by as many as six men at once
(see also Boas to Hunt, 10 March, 23 July 1920; Hunt
to Boas 9 July, 2 September 1 920, APS-BPC), and texts
that Hunt wrote in response to Boas' request for ex-
amples of how children were instructed (Boas to Hunt,
22 May 1928, APS-BPQ— a reflection of Boas' interest
in the socialization of children that emerged at the
end of the 1920s.

Among the handful of valuable ethnohistorical texts
in the volume is one about Hunt's trip to the west
coast of Vancouver Island in the fall of 1 871 , when he

was 1 7, to buy 20,000 tooth shells (dentalium) for the
Hudson's Bay Company (CU-Hunt xiv:21 93-290; Hunt
to Boas, 20 October 1 921 , APS-BPC). This long manu-
script, which Boas split for publication (APS-KTT:1 1 1-
3, 1 50-69, 270-5), has several noteworthy aspects.
Hunt's trip casts light on HBC operations on the coast
during this time, especially on the company's reach
into remote areas and the role of Native or part-Native
middlemen. The account also describes villages and
peoples that had all but disappeared by the time other
observers reached the area. Moreover, Hunt's manu-
script gives a detailed account of the methods of gath-
ering and preparing dentalium, a valued aboriginal trade
good that was most abundant on the west coast of
Vancouver Island. There is no other known account
of Kwakwaka'wakw dentalium harvesting. Hunt's
account includes lengthy descriptions of two Kwak-
waka'wakw weddings, one of them his own (para-
phrased in Boas 1966:56-61). Finally, the text, along
with several others in the volume, tells of incidents of
war between Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka'wakw
groups and provides other accounts of conflict be-
tween coastal groups.

Yet another text tells of missionizing activities in
Fort Rupert and the more northerly Kwakwaka'wakw
village of Xwamdasbe', more widely known as Newiti,
beginning in 1860 (CU-Hunt xiv:2978-3040; see also
Hunt to Boas, 31 May 1 924, APS-BPC). Hunt describes
a succession of missionaries who passed through these
communities with little apparent effect and records a
series of Chinookjargon prayers and hymns dating from
1 860. In one of the episodes, the Rev. A.J. Hall, a Church
of England missionary, and a Catholic bishop, "Bishop
lemons," battled for souls in Newiti, while the HBC, rep-
resented by Hunt, competed with an independent
white trader for fur seal pelts.

Again, this text is the only known account to deal
with missionary activities in any detail. The relatively
detached viewpoint used in describing these activi-
ties and their effects is important to note. It is interest-
ing that the Kwakwaka'wakw response to missionary

JUDITH BERMAN

1 83

fervor in those early years seems about the same as
their reaction to a "sun dance" movement that Hunt
describes elsewhere, which came north from the
"Victoria or american Indian" in the 1 840s or 1 850s
(APS-KM ii;68-70). In both cases, the Kwakwaka'wakw
seemed willing to try a new form of public ritual but
did not find the new ceremonies sufficiently compel-
ling to sustain their interest.

Hunt personally observed most of the events in
these accounts, but perhaps the most important
ethnohistorical text in the volume describes an inci-
dent that occurred before his birth and that has been
the subject of debate among historians of the North
Pacific Coast (Bancroft 1887:274-5; Fisher 1977:51-
2: Cough 1984:32-49). This incident, which began
when hunters from theT'ta'lasikwala division of the
Kwakwaka'wakw killed three HBC deserters, escalated
into a pitched gun battle between two divisions of
the Kwakwaka'wakw and the British Navy. Boas asked
Hunt for "the Indian version of that affair" (Boas to Hunt,
23 February 1928, APS-BPC). The resulting account,
which Hunt pieced together from several sources, is
the only one that tells the story from the Native point
of view (APS-KTT;191-7; CU-Hunt xiv:3924-43).^

Hunt's version, given in English only, generally agrees
with those of white historians as to the nature and
sequence of events. Both tell of the murders and the
concealment of the bodies, the dispatch from Fort
Rupert of a Native mediator and fact-finder, the visit of
a British warship to the village of P'atlams on Nigei
(Caliano) Island, and the refusal of the Indians to hand
over the perpetrators. Both versions describe the de-
struction of P'atlams, a further search for the perpetra-
tors, the destruction of a second Native village on Bull
Harbour on Hope Island, the death of an important
chief during the fighting, and the settlement of the
affair when the Natives handed over dead bodies that
were supposed to be those of the murderers.^

Hunt's version differs from those of white histori-
ans, however, in many details. The areas of greatest
disagreement are those of time frame and general

setting. HBC and colonial government records place
the events entirely within the summer and fall of 1 850,
in the first year of Fort Rupert's existence (Cough
1984:32-49; Johnson 1972). The erroneous date of
1 848 given by Hunt seems to have originated in the
letter Boas wrote requesting the account (Boas to Hunt,
23 February 1928, APS-BPC). Hunt's account also dif-
fers in setting the British reprisals a full year after the
murder, but this may be an error in translation from
his Kwakwaka'wakw sources: the Kwakwaka'wakw
counted each season, summer and winter, as a year
(Hunt to Boas, 1 9 November 1911, APS-BPC). Hunt also
states that the murdered men were two whites who
deserted a whaling ship named "Bobalits" that had
anchored near the northern tip of Vancouver Island
(CU-Hunt xiv:3934). Historical records, however, indi-
cated that the deserters were three indentured sailors
from the HBC ship Norman Mohson (Cough 1 984:40-
1). The reference to a whaling ship may have arisen
from a memory of another incident.

The more important differences lie in the perspec-
tive and in the nature of the story being told. White
historians have been preoccupied with the question
of whether colonial and military authorities were justi-
fied in punishing the entire tribe for the misdeeds of a
few. In their accounts, the Natives appear as a volatile,
dangerous, and not particularly comprehensible mass.
Hunt, in sharp contrast, focuses on the character and
actions of individual Indians, on ambivalence and con-
flict within the Native community, and on the conse-
quences of the Natives' unfamiliarity with the white
men who would increasingly dominate their lives.

According to one historian, the white deserters had
been killed "for refusing to submit to some extrava-
gant demands" (Cough 1984:41). Hunt says nothing
of any such demands; he portrays the murderers, who
were out that morning hunting for seals, as shooting
the white deserters almost for sport, or perhaps to
obtain their possessions:

[T]hey [the deserters] arrived among the little
Islands about one mile west of plELEtns

1 84

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

[P'atlams] in the morning and they were
laying Between two Islands in a narrow
Passage must have thinking about to Haul up
their Boat into the wood and Hide there that
Day. and as soon as one of the white men
Jump ashore . . . three Indian men . . . came
round a Point East of them not sixty yard
[away] . . . and Right away tslagE yos and
yEmgwas take there guns and ts!agE'yos told
toyEmgwas. you shoot at the man standing
at the left side . . . and I will shoot at the
other, said he as they fired, and killed Both of
the two white men. and the three Indians
went to the Place and took off all the cloths
of the two Dead men. and after took Every-
thing off them and then they carry the Dead
Bodys and Burry them in a Hollow tree. (CU-
Hunt xiv:3934)

The murderers, who were said to be "the two great
warriors" of their T'lat'tasikwala division (CU-Hunt
xiv:3936), told no one, not even their closest associ-
ates, what had happened. Soon, other white men ar-
rived, searching for the deserters, whom they believed
to be still alive. A chief, Yakudtas (Hunt: YaqoLas), told
the whites that no one at P'atlams had seen the men
or their boat. Colonial authorities later judged the Newiti
to have been lying (Cough 1984:41), but according to
Hunt, Yakudtas began to suspect what had happened
only when one of the murderers began wearing a white
man's shirt and trousers, which he implausibly claimed
to have purchased at Fort Rupert.

In Hunt's account, Yakudias' role is a crucial one; in
a way, he is the hero. Hunt's story also centers on
Kwakwaka'wakw ambivalence about warriors. Boas
states, "Warriors [bafeaA:Va] were generally disliked and
feared by the rest of the people. They were taught to
be cruel and treacherous and to disregard all the rules
of decent social behavior" (Boas 1966:106)." At the
same time, in an age of intertribal warfare and slave
raiding, warriors were defenders of the community.

Yakudias feared the two warriors who had done
the killings and dared not confront them directly. He
tricked one of the murderers into confessing the deed
to his lover, but nothing of substance occurred until
the HBC dispatched to the scene a Fort Rupert chief
named Nenagwas (called "Old Wale" by the HBC men;

Cough 1 984:41 ).Yakudtas confided in Nenagwas, who
promptly made a full report of all he had learned to the
white authorities. The subsequent arrival of a British
man-of-war, demanding that the murderers be handed
over, precipitated a crisis. One old T'lat'Jasikwala chief
said, in some disgust, "[l]f I had Power over these two
Bad men. I would send them off to the . . . man-of-war.
and let them Do as they like with them" (CU-Hunt
xiv:3939). But if the two warriors were unpopular, they
were still important members of the community. The
warriors argued that they had only done their duty:
"the Rules given to us By our forefather is to kill the first
foreigner or stranger we meet" in the territory controlled
by their division. This argument was accepted by most
of the villagers.

lots of the men . . . cryed out we will fight
against the white men. sooner than let them
take tslagE yos and yemgwas away, and turn
our great warriors into slaves, and we know
well that threat to Burn Down our Houses . . .
has no meaning. (CU-Hunt xiv:3839)

Yakudias pondered what the best course of action
would be.

"[W]hat can I say my tribes People [?]... it is
true we Dont know the ways of the white
People, about the murder and the only thing I
say [is] for you all to take good care in case
they carry out thier threat." (CU-Hunt
xiv:3840)

As it happened, the British made good their threat
to burn the village to the ground, but the inhabitants
had already fled. Still trying to apprehend the murder-
ers, the British man-of-war proceeded northward to
another village, at Bull Harbour, where they were met
with gunfire. The British assumed this to be a hostile
gesture (Cough 1 984:44), although, according to Hunt,
the Indians were merely attempting to "frightens the
Boats away." The sailors landed anyway.

still the Indians shooting at them and one of
the Boats midshipman a Very young man
saw a Indian Runing along in Front of the
Houses, and the midshipman toke his Rifle up
and he fired at the Indian. (CU-Hunt xiv:3942)

JUDITH BERMAN

1 85

This act provoked the Natives to shoot to kill. In
response, the British boats bombarded the village with
field artillery, driving the residents into the woods. Then
the sailors destroyed the second village, breaking up
all the canoes and burning down the houses.

Hunt ends his story with a series of outcomes that
are made ironic by his treatment of character. The
murderers— the two men whose actions had rendered
their fellow tribespeople homeless and impoverished
at the onset of winter— escaped arrest and punish-
ment. They accomplished this by killing two more men,
a pair of "innocent slaves," as Hunt says, and causing
the bodies to be delivered to Fort Rupert. "Of cours
the white men Believed these two Dead men are the
murderer[s]," who had been killed bytheTlatlasikwala
to end the trouble.

As for Yakudlas, the conscientious and percipient
chief who had worked the hardest to discover the
truth and avert disaster— he was the only Native killed
during the entire affair.^ YakudJas was the Native seen
running along the beach who was shot by the mid-
shipman Hunt mentioned. His death was the reason
"why the Indians Begin to shoot to kill."

The intermediary Nenagwas, whose role in the af-
fair seems ambiguous at best, did not escape entirely
unscathed. As he watched while British sailors destroyed
a second village of his friends and neighbors, he

was siting in one of the Boats. Dressed with
Button Blanket, and he was wearing a geqBwi
or large chief Hat and he Had a Bone with
abalone shell Decoration Ear Hanger . . . and
while the sailors Breaking up the canoes
walas the chief told ts'.agE yos. you are a
good shot you take a shot at nanagwas you
shoot at his Head and then tslagE yos lake a
Rest on a stump of a tree, and he fired and
the Ball struck na nagwas Ear and cut the
string that go through his Ear to Hold up the
Bone Ear Hanger. (CU-Hunt xiv:3943)

Boas' "KwakiutI Dictionary"

A second volume that Boas was not able to see to
publication was his typescript Kwak'wala dictionary
(APS-KWD). This dictionary, located at the APS, is an

important linguistic document, and by far the most
comprehensive dictionary of Kwak'wala in existence
at this writing.'^ It is based on a huge corpus of mate-
rial, including over 2,000 printed pages of Hunt's text,
many more pages of unpublished materials. Boas'
own not insubstantial linguistic fieldwork, and 45 years
of epistolary questions-and-answers between Boas
and Hunt on many points about the language. The
dictionary was constructed in relation to the text cor-
pus; almost every entry gives textual citations, often
numerous ones, from the published text volumes.

This unpublished dictionary reflects a phonologi-
cal and morphological understanding of Kwak'wala
that is far more sophisticated then anything Boas
published in his lifetime. Together with Boas' post-
humously published grammar (1947), the dictionary
shows that Boas, while perhaps lacking the sheer
analytical brilliance of his student Edward Sapir, was
nevertheless one of the most talented linguists of the
first half of the 20th century.

One sees in these works, however, a certain amount
of inconsistency, even contradiction, in Boas' treat-
ment of linguistic structure. Here, as almost nowhere
else in his corpus. Boas' analysis reveals simplicity of
pattern within the massive multiplicity of his data. One
could cite his presentation of such topics as the pho-
nological structure of roots or the morphophonemic
changes undergone by stems in various circumstances.

At the same time. Boas appears at first glance to
be unaware of or uninterested in systematic pattern-
ing in other areas of the language— patterning that his
own data seem to reveal quite clearly. The issue of
categories within the very numerous "stem-suffixes" (a
morphological class) provides one example. "Stem-suf-
fixes" can express, in Boas' words, "denominative,
predicative or adverbial concepts" (Boas 1947:225).
Boas rejected the efforts of Sapir and Swadesh
(1939:236) to classify such suffixes in the Wakashan
and Salishan languages. The criteria these men used,
he argued, were "not based on internal evidence, but
rather on our European classifications." Boas did not

1 86

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

see any "internal evidence" in Kwak'wala either, choos-
ing instead a general semantic categorization for his
grammar that, he said, "should be considered merely
as a convenience designed to give an impression of
the range of ideas expressed" (Boas 1 947:237).

There are, however, functional distinctions between
various categories of Kwak'wala stem suffix. One such
functionally defined category is that of the numeral
classifiers (Berman 1990). When counting objects in
Kwak'wala, numbers and other quantifier stems nearly
always appear with one of a strictly limited set of suf-
fixes. The suffixes are divided between "sortal" and
"mensural" classifiers, the first indicating the shape of
the object being counted— bulky (round), long, flat,
hollow, and so on— and the second indicating a mea-
surement, such as number of days, armspans, or layers
(Berman 1990:38; see Lyons 1977).^

Nearly all of this information can be found in Boas'
grammar, but it is obscured by his presentation. Boas
mentions five of the sortal classifiers in a list of "classi-
fying suffixes" that he states are used in counting ob-
jects (Boas 1947:279). His phrasing in that passage,
though, suggests that these are the only classifying
suffixes used with numbers. In a different part of his
grammar he again lists the 5 suffixes, together with 1 4
others, in one of his categories of "convenience" la-
beled "limitations of form" (1947:240). He makes no
explicit statement about the use of these 1 9 suffixes.
In nearly every example he gives, however, the suffixes
are used with a numeral. Examination of quantifier
phrases in the Kwak'wala texts reveals that all or nearly
all of the 1 9 are in fact numeral classifiers. This would
seem to indicate that Boas understood the rule he did
not state: these 1 9 suffixes belong to a category that
is clearly and unambiguously defined in terms of func-
tion—use with numbers.

Another example is provided by the locative suf-
fixes. The stem suffixes of this category are numerous
and highly productive in the 1 9th-centurY Kwak'wala
of Hunt's texts. At least three factors define them
as a class. First, the plural element (-am-) requires a

following locative suffix. Second, four suffixes express-
ing various kinds of determinate and indeterminate
motion are always followed by locative suffixes. Fi-
nally, there is a set of stems that require locative suf-
fixes. As it happens, these stems also express the shape
gender of the object to which they refer, i.e., whether
it is flat, long, hollow, and so on.

Again, this information is not lacking in Boas' gram-
mar and dictionary; it is merely scattered, and difficult
to find if one is looking for information on locative
suffixes. Boas does explicitly state the first two of the
three rules, but only in his remarks on other, nonlocative
suffixes (Boas 1947:302, 349-50). The third rule can
be gleaned from the entries for the stems in his unpub-
lished dictionary. For instance, for the stem' niakw-,
Boas has the gloss "a round thing is somewhere (sing.),"
and he further gives numerous examples of words
formed from these stems using locative suffixes, includ-
ing'maxwrso (round things inside, i.e., seedsT, makola
(round thing stationary on water, i.e., island),~/nagwap'e'
(round thing in nape of neck, i.e., occiput) (APS-
KWD: 145-6). Although Boas nowhere discusses loca-
tive suffixes as a group— they are split among at least
four of his categories of "convenience"— he definitely
understood the rules that defined them as a category.

Moreover, it seems clear from Boas' glosses that
he perceived the semantic patterning common to nu-
meral classifiers, the shape-expressing stems just men-
tioned, and a subset of the locative suffixes, the shape
locatives. The latter refer to the location of an object
or activity in terms of a feature of its shape— for ex-
ample, -ba, "end of long horizontal object." Among
other things. Boas uses a common vocabulary in gloss-
ing classifiers, shape stems, and shape locatives:
"round," "flat," "long," "human," and "hollow." These
are also the five shape classes he lists in his brief
comments on the use of numeral classifiers (Boas
1947:279). Other usage indicates that Boas per-
ceived additional common features of the system;
for example, the orientation of the object (horizon-
tal, vertical, upside down, etc.).

JUDITH BERMAN

1 87

In contrast to Boas' presentation of these points in
his dictionary and grammar, his inquiry into the shape-
expressing stems and suffixes, as revealed in miscella-
neous linguistic materials in his papers, was system-
atic and extensive. He sent Hunt numerous lists of forms
in English to translate into Kwak'wala, or in Kwak'wala
to correct or translate into English (APS-KM i:4529,
ii:l 358-60, iii:4810; APS-KEM iii:384-5; see also APS-
KM iii: 1584-97; Boas to Hunt, 10 September 1918,
20 February 1919, APS-BPC). Boas had clearly identi-
fied the various categories and patterns. What he did
not do was make formal and explicit in his dictionary
or grammar what he had learned about the system.^

The Boas-Hunt Correspondence

In the context of the entire Boas-Hunt corpus of writ-
ten records, the most important set of unpublished
documents is their correspondence. These letters span
the years 1 894 to 1 933 and number over a thousand
pages, split more or less evenly between those from
Boas' hand and those from Hunt's.

The correspondence is divided among several lo-
cations. The bulk of it can be found in the Hunt file.
Boas Professional Correspondence, American Philosophi-
cal Society (APC-BPC). Quite a few individual letters are
scattered through other document collections at the
APS (e.g., Boas-Hunt KwakiutI Materials, KM). The An-
thropology Archives at the American Museum of Natu-
ral History (AMNH) holds a significant body, divided
between the Hunt correspondence files and acces-
sion records (designated, respectively, as AMNH-HCF
and AMNH-HAR in this chapter). These letters are from
the years 1 894 to 1 905, and most are connected with
the Jesup Expedition. Finally, a few letters are among
the Hunt manuscripts at Columbia University (CU-Hunt).

The Boas-Hunt correspondence is important be-
cause it documents the two men's published and un-
published ethnographic record so minutely. The Boas-
Hunt ethnography of the Kwakwaka'wakw was, as I
have said elsewhere, an epistolary ethnography (Berman
1 996). Boas sent his requests for information by letter;

Hunt sent a letter in return with just about every ship-
ment of texts, objects, or photographs. Both sides of
the correspondence are of great interest.

Just as Boas' unpublished linguistic materials reveal
that his thinking on several linguistic subjects was far
more organized and insightful than his publications
would suggest, his letters reveal much about the na-
ture of his ethnographic research that is invisible else-
where. I have discussed this issue in some detail else-
where (Berman 1 996); here I would like just to men-
tion the key points.

The correspondence shows that Boas' research pro-
ceeded in a logical order that is not obscured by the
numerous digressions. In the 1 890s Boas was most
concerned with collecting material culture for muse-
ums. In the first decade of the 20th century he moved
to an examination of technology, foodways, ethno-
zoology, and ethnobotany. By the latter part of that
decade he had taken up social organization— a sub-
ject he actively pursued until the 1920s, when he be-
gan questioning Hunt about "the way the Indians think
and feel" (Boas to Hunt, 1 9 September 1 920, APS-BPC).
By the late 1 920s he had become interested in the
socialization of children (Boas to Hunt, 22 May 1928,
APS-BPC).

The letters show that on any given topic. Boas pur-
sued information in an orderly and systematic fashion.
The kinds of questions he posed to Hunt were often
no more than standard anthropological queries on such
subjects as the use of a particular plant species or the
possibility of parallel-cousin marriage. But other texts
were intended by Boas to be case studies to help him
sort out areas of social organization or religion that he
found difficult to understand. Boas has been criticized
for the endlessness, obscurity, and triviality of his texts,
yet there is little that is obscure in the questions he
posed to Hunt.

Hunt's letters are an equally rich source of informa-
tion. First, they often provide considerable context for
individual Hunt texts. For instance, one narrative text
appears in published form with a typically terse

1 88

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

annotation by Boas, "A Koskimo story, recorded by
George Hunt" (1 943:202). When Hunt transmitted this
text, however, he sent along the following comment:

on the 1 9th I send you Page 2097-21 1 1 the
true whole story about nekweilagEine or
night-time Hunter, who was towed across
the ocean By the rotton wood Hair seal. This
old man negatse told me this same story few
year ago. . . . and now this time I made a
special trip to gosgi mox to see this old man
nEgatse. which told me this story again, and
he told the story just the way I write it Down
. . . next I will try and find out as you say
about the Birds of the upper world. (Hunt to
Boas, 25 April 1 921 , APS-BPC)

Hunt's letters also contain ethnographic and
ethnohistorical information not found elsewhere. For
instance, they supply otherwise unavailable informa-
tion on genres of oral literature (Hunt to Boas, 4 July
1 91 6, 28 February, 1 0 March 1 91 7, APS-BPS). Together
with comments Hunt made in texts and in other un-
published materials, these statements allow recon-
struction of the taxonomy of 19th-century Kwak-
waka'wakw oral literature, despite Boas' near-total
silence on the topic (APS-KM iii:4624; Berman 2000;
see also Berman 1 991 ;n 7-34).

A more extended example is to be found in Hunt's
detailed comments on the history of "coppers," the
highly valued copper plaques of the North Pacific Coast.
What started Hunt on this topic was Boas' request
that he confirm a story regarding a copper recently
purchased by the Peabody Museum in Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts. Hunt wrote to Boas,

I called the oldest men of Fort Rupert into
my House, and I Read the . . . storry to them
about the copper, and the 12 slaves and
Blankets paid for it. all the old men laughed
loud, and said ... in all the coppers which
was Brought Down to Fort Rupert By the
Haida and tsimshians and kelkatia . . . [the
highest number of] slaves Paid on thes[e]
copper[s] ... is one slave a little saanich
[Salish] girl, and the Highest Price Paid for a
copper By these People [in those days] is
from 40 to 86 blankets. (Hunt to Boas, 4
December 1921, APS-BPC)

Hunt told Boas that the Peabody Museum's copper

had been left in Fort Rupert by a Nisga'a man who had
hoped to sell it there but had been called home by a
sudden illness in his family. The Fort Rupert acquain-
tance with whom he had left his copper was unable
to sell it because it

have to much Ring in it. what the Indians Dont
want to Buy. for it shows that it is white mans
sheet copper for the true native copper have
no Ringing sound in them for the face of Body .
. . is all scale or Rough that shows where its
Been Hammerd By Round stone. (Hunt to Boas,
4 December 1921, APS-BPC)

Hunt went on to relate the history of another cop-
per, a story that illustrates some of the changes occur-
ring in Kwakwaka'wakw society during the second
half of the 19th century (Fig. 53). The main character in
Hunt's story is a man of a certain entrepreneurial bent
namedK'odi (Hunt'sKlade):

now this man K!ade is not a chief son. his one
of the first man who takes for his wife a Pretty
young women, and take her Down to Victoria,
and makes money from her. and By this kind of
Badness he cought up to what the true chiefs
where Doing in there Potlatches ... But when
he Had a Row with them they soon let him
know that he was a common class man. (Hunt
to Boas, 4 December 1 921 , APS-BPC)

K'odi gave lavish potlatches from these dubious pro-
ceeds in order to raise his status. Then he secretly hired
a Haida man to manufacture a forgery:

and after the Haida man fineshed, he was told
By K!ade. to Pretend and Put it up for sale, to all
the Defferent tribes who use to go to Victoria,
so this Haida man show the copper to all the
chiefs, in a feast that was given by K!ade and all
of the Defferent tribes looked at the copper,
and of cou[r]se they Each one of them wants to
Buy it. But they Had no cash or Blankets with
them, so . . . K'ade asked the chiefs, now if I Buy
this copper, who will Buy it from me. and give
me Double the Price I would give for it. and one
of the chiefs said I will Buy it from you ... so
Klade. gived the Haida man one Hundred
Dollers for the. copper.

K'odi told the chiefs that the copper was an old
one that had belonged to the Haida man's grandfa-
ther. "[I]t was so well made," Hunt wrote, that "one of

JUDITH BERMAN

1 89

the chiefs Did take it and Paid K!ade two Hundred
Dollers worth of Blankets for it."

But K'odi and his Haida accomplice had a falling
out when K'odi took back half of what he had paid
in public to "purchase" the copper. In retaliation, the
Haida man

told the chiefs that K!ade . . . Paid him the other
fifty Dollers for makeing the copper, and that
K!ade. paid three Dollers and fifty cents for the
copper sheet from a store ... in the year 1 873.
and this copper Been sold so meney times now
the Price is twenty thousand . . . Blankets. (Hunt
to Boas, 4 December 1921, APS-BPC)

Materials for the ethnography and ethnohistory of
other North Pacific groups occasionally surface in
Hunt's letters. One story concerns the fate of the com-
panions of a Haida chief, "Cetqon" (or CsdExan as in
Boas 1966:107), who in 1856 made the mistake of
visiting Fort Rupert and was killed trying to escape
the wrath of the resident Kwakwaka'wakw (Hunt to
Boas, 5 December 1921, APS-BPC; Boas 1966:107;
Travis 1946:33). Hunt also sheds light on his Tlingit
mother's home village of Tongass. For example, in one
letter Hunt describes an occasion on which he wit-
nessed the construction and use of "the sweat Bath of
the Alaska Indians" (Hunt to Boas, 28 September 1918,
APS-BPC). The details Hunt supplies of Tongass Tlingit
ethnography and history, though few and far
between, are valuable because Tongass is so poorly
documented elsewhere.

Hunt's letters also document, sometimes in con-
siderable detail, the Kwakwaka'wakw collections he
made for Boas. Examples can be seen in the captions
for the exhibit catalogue Chiefly Feasts (e.g., Marcus
1 991 ). To a lesser degree, the letters document collec-
tions that Hunt made for George Heye, but the infor-
mation that would make the letters useful is still scat-
tered among the Boas-Hunt correspondence, the Hunt
myth texts associated with the objects, and the ac-
cession records of the National Museum of the Ameri-
can Indian. (See, for instance. Boas to Hunt, 5 June 1 906,
20 April 1909; Hunt to Boas 10 March, 20 November
1 909, 29 April, 9 December 1 91 0, APS-BPC).

Census and Maps of Fort Rupert

In 1910, Boas wrote to Hunt asking for a

detailed statement about the relationship
between all the men and women, and the
houses they live in, in Fort Rupert, and . . .
the nKinemut [descent group] they belong
to, and to what riEmemut their wives and
children belong. (Boas to Hunt, 28 February
1910, APS-BPC)

Boas was to repeat this request in various forms over
the next nine years (e.g.. Boas to Hunt, 4 April 1 91 3,
12 May 1919, APS-BPC). Finally, in late 1919, Hunt
complied, leaving out, however, some of the informa-
tion Boas had asked for and providing instead two
censuses, one representing Fort Rupert in 1919 and
one, remarkably, as the community had been in 1 866
(Hunt to Boas, 18 July, 20 August, 4 October 1919,
APS-BPC). Hunt also made two pencil drawings to
show the site plan of the community as it had been in
each of those years.

Unfortunately, this set of manuscripts does not seem
to have survived intact, although the missing pieces
may eventually be located among Boas' papers.
Enough of it remains in some form, however, to make
discussion of it possible. The two drawings are extant,
and although both the finished censuses that Hunt
mailed to Boas are apparently missing, a draft of the
1 866 census has survived in a notebook of Hunt's in a
private collection.^ A copy of this notebook was kindly
made available to me by Bill Holm. Two pages of the
draft 1 866 census, and information about the note-
book, are in Holm and Quimby 1980:48, 127-8.

The census, which covers 20 nonconsecutive
pages in the notebook, lists every inhabitant of the
Native community at Fort Rupert, known in
Kwak'wala as Tsaxis. This community was founded
in 1 850, when the four divisions (i.e., "tribes") of the
Kwakwaka'wakw then living along Clio Channel
moved to the recently established HBC fort (Boas
1921:973-7, 1 966:46; Johnson 1972:8).'° These
four divisions came to be known collectively as the
Kwagut, from which name arose the "Kwakiutl" of
anthropological literature.

1 90

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Hunt's 1 866 census is organized by the traditional
"bighouses" and identifies each house by descent group
and divisional affiliation. The houses are numbered 1
through 26, and correspond almost exactly to the 26
houses on Hunt's 1 866 site plan (Fig. 54).

Within the house, individuals are listed by name,
descent group, and divisional affiliation and, often, by
their relationships to others in the house. The individu-
als are numbered; thus, the inhabitants of House 1 are
numbered 1 through 27 and those of House 14, 509
through 558. There are gaps, irregularities, and many
alterations in the numbering in this rough draft of the
census, and Hunt's total of 840 for the population of
Tsaxis may not represent a completely accurate count.

Hunt's choice of 1866 for his census raises some
questions. In late December 1 865 the British naval
vessel Clio bombarded and burned Tsaxis, completely
destroying it, in retaliation for the refusal of the popu-
lation to surrender three Kwagui suspected of murder
(Cough 1984:82-4). According to Johan Adrian
Jacobsen, who visited Tsaxis in 1881, the Kwagui
partially abandoned the site thereafter, and only about
250-300 people remained to rebuild the community
(Woldt 1977:32).

Hunt's 1 866 site plan of Tsaxis generally agrees
with an undated photograph (Fig. 55) that shows a
long row of Native houses with early house fronts of
broad, horizontal, hand-hewn planks supported by up-
right poles. This image was taken from the east side of
the stream mouth and the fort. It is a composite of
two photographs, and a section of the village con-
taining parts of at least two houses is missing where
the segments were joined imperfectly near the center.
Otherwise, the visible houses correspond well with the
western portion of Hunt's "1 866" site plan.

In sharp contrast, a sketch of Fort Rupert made in
May 1 866 shows only a few houses standing on the
west side of the site (Fig. 56). These may be either
ruins or new construction. The rebuilt village, seen in
an image from 1 881 , shows a rather different distribu-
tion of houses (Fig. 57). iVloreover, by 1881 upright

JUDITH BERMAN

planks had replaced the older-style fronts in all but
one of the houses. The census and the "1 866" site
plan, then, most likely represent Tsaxis before its bom-
bardment by the Clio.

A further question about the census is that it is
apparently based on Hunt's interrupted experience of
the community as a teenager, recorded 50 years later.
Hunt was born in Fort Rupert in February 1 854 and
would have been a few months shy of 1 2 in late 1 865
(Hunt to Boas, 7 April 1 91 6, 6 January 1 91 9, APS-BPC;
Barbeau 1 950:65 1 ). Further, his residence in Fort Rupert
during the 1 860s was not continuous. According to
Hunt, in 1 863 his mother took him north to her home
village in Tongass Tlingit territory (Hunt to Boas, 2 Au-
gust 1920, APS-BPC)." It is not known how long they
stayed there, but Hunt did witness the "1 864" Tongass
winter dances (APS-KM v:5552), which could mean
those of 1863-64 or, more likely, of 1 864-65. Hunt
may also have lived in the north during 1 868-71 , while
his father was stationed there (HBCA, Robert Hunt Bi-
ography:7-8; Barbeau 1 950:65 1).'^ By 1872 he had
married and settled permanently at Fort Rupert (CU-
Hunt xiv:2197, 2238).

Nevertheless, the census should not be dismissed.
Hunt's writings demonstrate that he was a man with
an extraordinary capacity for remembering detail, and
his mother's family, his wife, and most of his friends
came from cultures in which vast amounts of genea-
logical, historical, and mythological information were
stored and transmitted without benefit of the written
word. It is likely, anyway, that Hunt did not rely solely
on his own memory to draw up this census. The Boas-
Hunt correspondence makes it clear that Hunt fre-
quently consulted Kwakwaka'wakw elders and friends
in his work for Boas.

As one measure of its reliability, the census corre-
sponds at many points with other Hunt documents,
such as his unpublished list of descent-group "seats"
(ranked positions; APS-KM vi:31 44-75) and various
published and unpublished family histories (Boas
1921:891-938, 951-1002, 1093-1117, 1925:64-

1 91

357; APS-KEM iii:342, 391-403; CU-Hunt xiv:1598-
1619, 1660-70). It also corresponds in some details
with historical documents such as the 1851 land
purchase agreement between the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany and the chiefs of Tsaxis (FRP; Curtis 191 5:1 50).
Caution must be observed, however, as some Kwak-
waka'wakw names occur widely, and some high-
ranking Kwakwaka'wakw of the day changed their
names frequently or had more than one name. Hunt
sometimes refers to an individual by one name, some-
times by another.

Social Information in Hunt's Census
Despite questions that remain about the 1 866 cen-
sus, it is an important document for the study of the
four Kwagui divisions, as well as for the Kwak-
waka'wakw in general, and it has implications for the
ethnohistory of the larger region. Among other things,
the 1 866 census and site plan are a rich source of
information on 19th-century KwakiutI social organiza-
tion and have the potential to clarify issues of descent,
succession, residence, and marriage among the 1 9th-
century Kwakwaka'wakw that remain subjects of con-
troversy to this day.

The census shows the houses as being grouped
according to division, as another Tsaxis resident,
Charley Nowell, also recalled (Ford 1 941 :1 3, 49). Thus,
the nine houses of the K'umuyo'i division are clus-
tered on the left (east) side of the HBC fort, while the
nine houses of the Gwitala division orKwagut proper
extend along the right (west) side. Beyond them in a
line extend the two houses of the K'umk'u'as divi-
sion (marked "4" or "Y" in Hunt's drawing) and the six
belonging to the" Walas Kwagut. The spatial arrange-
ment of divisions recalls that of the old Kwagui vil-
lages on Clio Channel (see Figs. 52, 60; Boas 1934,
map 14). There, the K'umuyo'i town at K'abe' and
the Gwitala community at Kalugwis faced each other
across a body of water; the ' Walas Kwagul and
K'umk'ut'as dwelled together at Adap' on the far
side of the Gwitala (Boas 1 921 :1 38-9, 1 966:46).

1 92

In contrast, the census reveals no obvious pattern
in the distribution of houses within each "quarter" of
the village. The order of the houses does not reflect
the ranking of descent groups within the division as
given by Boas (1 966:39). When a single descent group
occupies more than one house, the houses seem placed
more or less randomly. Thus, in theGwitala quarter the
houses occupied by the highest-ranking (Ma'amtagila)
descent group are 1 , 7, and 9. This is contrary to Boas'
statement that each descent group "occupied its own
section of the village" (Boas 1 966:48).

The two houses closest to the beachside entrance
to the HBC post, 1 and 1 8, belonged to the Ma'amtagi-
la and Kwakwak'wam, the highest-ranking descent
groups of the Gwitala and Kumuyo'i, respectively.
These two divisions, in turn, comprised the higher-rank-
ing "side" in the dual organization of Tsaxis (Berman
1991:97-102; Ford 1941:17, 70). House 1, interest-
ingly, is identified in the census not by descent group
but only as "awades House." Owadi, the first person
listed in House 1 , was a powerful figure in Fort Rupert
and is mentioned by Hunt in a number of contexts
(e.g.. Boas 1 966:1 90, 256). Owadi is the first chief in
his division listed in the 1851 land purchase agree-
ment (where the name is spelled "Wawattie"), and he
was said to have been the head chief of Tsaxis in 1 865.

There is no information about the first man listed in
House 1 8, but the man following him in the census, his
brother "Nolis" (Nulis), seems to be mentioned in other
documents. Nulis is the second chief listed in the 1 851
agreement for the Kumuyo'i/Kwixa division (the name
is given there as "Noolish"), and by 1 871 he was head
chief of the descent group owning House 1 8 (CU-Hunt
xiv:2269). The placement of the two houses calls to
mind Boas' observation that in Kwakwaka'wakw
myths the chiefs house is to be found in the center of
the village (Boas 1966:301).

In most cases in the census, each house serves as
the residence for a single descent group, although sev-
eral descent groups are large enough to require two
or more houses. The number of residents per house

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

averaged 31. The number of distinct households— a
household, generally speaking, consisting of a nuclear
family (Berman 1991:66-8; Ford 1941:11; APS-KEM
111:342, 391-403)— is also rather large. In House 1, for
instance, the 27 inhabitants consisted of 7 monoga-
mously married couples and their children, 2 other men
with 2 wives each, and 1 slave couple. In House 7 the
36 inhabitants included 8 couples and their children, 2
sets of divorced or widowed women and their unmar-
ried daughters, and a single man apparently living by
himself. These are far in excess of Ford's estimate that
the traditional Kwagui house held an average of four
family units (Ford 1 941 :1 1 ; compare Boas 1 897:369).

Rank, that pervasive feature of North Pacific social
organization, is implicit in the order in which Hunt lists
the residents of a house. As noted above, the first
person listed in House 1 , Owadi, was the highest-rank-
ing chief in Fort Rupert. In other cases, the rank of the
individual's name or "seat" (k'wayi) in the descent
group can often be discovered by consulting another
unpublished Hunt manuscript (APS-KM vi:31 44-75). In
cases in which at least three seats of house members
are known (1 9 of 26 houses), it can be seen that house
members are listed generally in order of rank. The
irregularities in rank order probably arise from the
frequent practice of making a young heir the osten-
sible rank holder (Ford 1 941 :1 77, 209). For example,
in House 8 the first individual listed is a man whose
name belongs to the third seat in theLa'alaxs 'andayu
descent group; two of his sons have the first and
second seats, while his daughter is in the fourth seat.
Given that only two of the men listed first in their houses
actually occupied the first official rank in their descent
groups (Houses 4 and 5), this situation may have been
quite common.

That the man listed first in a house is always head
of the house regardless of ostensible rank is supported
by the distribution of polygyny in Tsaxis. Hunt wrote,

Everyone of the chiefs of the four tribes . . . Had
two wives Each they take their first wife who is
a Daughter of a chief of one nememot [descent

group] then again he takes another chief['s]
Daughter who is Belong to another nsmimot.
(Hunt to Boas, 7 December 1926, APS-BPC)

To judge by the census, there is some exaggeration in
this statement, but 8 of the 1 1 cases of polygyny listed
in the census do involve a house chief. Two of the
remaining cases are a son and a brother of house chiefs
who were also polygynous, and these men are listed
second in their respective houses.

Another indication that the names given in the cen-
sus can be a poor guide to the bearer's real position is
demonstrated by the ostensible rank of the house chiefs
of the two houses built on either side of the entrance
to the HBC post, Houses 1 and 18. These men, as
discussed above, were the highest-ranking chiefs of
their respective divisions. What is more, each had two
wives, and each is followed in the census by a relative
(son or brother) who also had two wives; these are the
only two houses in Tsaxis where there is more than
one plural marriage. Yet the names these men held
belonged to seats 1 3 and 1 8 in their respective de-
scent groups, and in each case someone else's child
had the name belonging to the first seat of the de-
scent group.

Another point of interest in the census is the con-
siderable evidence for the nonunilineal tendency of
Kwakwaka'wakw social organization. Although Hunt
always affiliates children with their father's descent
group and there appears a definite tendency in the
direction of patrilocal residence, the houses frequently
contain residents connected through women mem-
bers of the descent group. The inhabitants of House 1
included, among others, the house chief Owadi, his
two wives, his son, and the son's two wives, as well as
Owadi's sister and her husband and the latter's niece
and nephew. In House 1 1 residents included the chief
and his two wives, the chief's son and three daugh-
ters, and the husband of one of the daughters. An-
other lower-ranking man dwelled in that house with
his wife, two daughters, the daughters' husbands, three
granddaughters and one grandson (each daughter

JUDITH BERMAN

1 93

having borne two children), the spouses of the four
grandchildren, and, finally, five great-grandchildren, who
were all a daughter's daughter's daughter's children.

The census further tells us that only about 2 per-
cent of the population of Tsaxis was slaves and that
the slave population was divided more or less evenly
by sex.''' Only one chief, in House 26, owned as many
as 7 slaves (who are explicitly said to be his). Many
houses had none, and most descent-group houses
with slave residents possessed only one.

The census also contributes to the understanding
of demographic changes on the North Pacific Coast
during the 1 9th century. It is clear that severe depopu-
lation took place, but there is little reliable data. Hunt's
census and related documents supply figures for Tsaxis
only after demographic decline had probably been un-
der way for at least half a century (Gibson 1 992:272-
7; Cough 1984:80). Hunt's numbers for the years fol-
lowing 1865 are telling, however: according to him,
his two censuses showed how the Native population
of Fort Rupert declined from a total of 840 people in
"1866" to a community with only 45 adult men, or
around 200 people in all, by 1919 (Hunt to Boas, 18
July, 20 August, 4 October 1 91 9, APS-BPC).

Although out-migration, including the partial aban-
donment of Tsaxis following its destruction by the Clio,
no doubt contributed to this decline, the census, to-
gether with another unpublished Hunt document,
shows that, as expected, increased mortality and low
fertility also played an important role. Hunt wrote at
length about the inhabitants of a single house named
Gukustolis ("House That Came out of the Sea") as
they were in 1 870 (Hunt to Boas, 27 April 1 906, APS-
BPC; APS-KEM iii:391-403). A comparison of names
shows that these are the people of House 8 on the
"1866" census. In 1865 House 8, belonging to the
La'alaxs'andayu descent group, had 73 inhabitants
and 1 5 households and was the most populous dwell-
ing in Tsaxis. By 1 870 the number of households had
dropped to 13, and Hunt mentions only 25 inhabit-
ants (although those figures may include only rank

holders and close relatives of the chief, and we do not
know whether the former inhabitants had died, left
Tsaxis, or split off to form a new house). After 1 870,
however, misfortune and disease— chiefly tuberculo-
sis—exacted a severe toll on those 25 inhabitants. In
1906 Hunt wrote somberly, "[A]ll of thes People lived
in that House . . . and now there is only one living in it
without a wife" (APS-KEM iii:398).

Boas' Kinship Research

The census is a particularly good demonstration of
the synergy of the Boas-Hunt collaboration. The idea
was Boas', and he had to ask Hunt several times. When
Hunt finally undertook the task, he did not do pre-
cisely as Boas asked, as was often the case; he did
not, for example, list "the relationship between all the
men and women ... in Fort Rupert" (Boas to Hunt, 28
February 1910, APS-BPC). As was also often the case,
he did other things that are of equal interest. He com-
pleted a much longer census of Tsaxis as it was in
1 866, in addition to the census of the contemporary
community that Boas had asked him to make, and he
further supplied the two site plans.'

The census and related documents, together with
the list of ranked positions, highlight the ratio between
the immense amount of information Boas gathered
on Kwakwaka'wakw social organization and the
relatively small amount of his writing devoted to that
subject— one article (Boas 1 940b) and a chapter in
each of two different books (Boas 1897:328-41,
1966:37-76). Boas has frequently been criticized for
the quantity of detail and the dearth of analysis in his
pub-lications. Of course, one of his ethnographic goals
was to collect raw ethnographic and linguistic mate-
rials for future generations (Berman 1 996:21 8-9). But
it is increasingly clear that there was more insight and
analysis behind Boas' collection of data than might at
first appear.

In the correspondence, Boas frequently refers to
the difficult nature of Kwakwaka'wakw descent, af-
filiation, and succession— topics that have bedeviled

1 94

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

succeeding generations of anthropologists. Boas asked
Hunt to collect family histories, for example, to aid in
"straightening the matter out." "[Y]ou cannot be too
detailed in getting information," he wrote (Boas to Hunt,
6 March 1 906, APS-BPC; compare Boas to Hunt, 20
May 1911). In Boas' last comments on the Kwak-
waka'wakw descent group, published post-humously,
he offered what is probably the clearest insight into
the system to be found anywhere.

The structure of the numayma [descent
group] is best understood if we disregard the
living individuals and rather consider the
numayma as consisting of a certain number
of positions to each of which belongs a
name, a "seat" or "standing place" that
means rank, and privileges. . . . These names
and seats are the skeleton of the numayma,
and individuals, in the course of their lives,
may occupy various positions and with these
take the names belonging to them . . . The
numayma is neither strictly patrilineal nor
matrilineal, and within certain limits, a child
may be assigned to any one of the lines from
which he or she is descended, by bequest
even to unrelated lines. (Boas 1966:50-1)

It is easy to miss the fact that this short passage is
the summation of years of analysis of a vast body of
data— Boas needed the vast body of data in order to
arrive here. Comparison of this passage with Boas' rather
primitive analysis in 1 897, in which he argued that the
Kwakwaka'wakw descent group showed a patrilin-
eal form of organization under the influence of the matri-
lineal societies to the north (Boas 1 897:334-5), shows
how far he had traveled in the intervening years.

Another way to look at Boas' body of data on
Kwakwaka'wakw social organization is to focus on
its unusual form. Although later generations of North
American anthropologists regarded Boas as having little
worthwhile to say about social organization, the un-
published documents suggest that he might better be
regarded as a pioneer. The lengthy family histories were
intended as case studies. The censuses of Fort Rupert
are virtually unique for their era. (Gifford 1 926 is an
exception but was obtained somewhat later.) Boas
also obtained from Hunt lengthy biographical accounts,

including one that examined the potlatch and the
chiefly role in terms of one man's life (Boas 1 925:1 1 2-
357) and another, the socialization and education of a
Kwakwaka'wakw woman (CU-Hunt xiv:41 37-45,
4198-205, 4250-3, 4327-35; APS-KM iii:41 45-83,
41 89-98, 4206-50, 4283-326). We have already noted
the unpublished texts examining the margins of gen-
der among the 1 9th-century Kwakwaka'wakw. These
materials are all the more impressive when we con-
sider what is to be found in other ethnographic publi-
cations of the time.

Boas did not stumble on these ethnographic no-
tions blindly; they clearly arose out of a principled and
creative thought process. Of course, it was George
Hunt who made it possible for Boas to collect such
vast amounts of detailed information on such (for the
time) unusual topics. But it was Boas who thought of
collecting this information, and who pursued it through
Hunt in an organized and systematic fashion.

The Social Organization and the Secret
Societies of the Kwai<iutl Indians

Boas' 1 897 monograph The Social Organization and
the Secret Societies of the Kwal<iutl Indians {designated
here as SOSSKwt) is one of his few major analytical or
summarizing works on the Kwakwaka'wakw. The only
other major publication covering similar ground is a
posthumous volume, Kwakiutl Ethnography (1 966),
which was assembled by Helen Codere from a combi-
nation of published sources and manuscripts in prepa-
ration at the time of Boas' death in 1 942.

The 1 897 monograph remains Boas' most signifi-
cant and primary statement on the Winter Ceremonial
complex of the 1 9th-century Kwakwaka'wakw, and
particularly on the relation between the ceremonial and
its material culture and mythology. Boas' only other
significant discussion of the Winter Ceremonial is in the
two chapters in KwakiutI Ethnography {] 966: 1 71 -298;
see also pp. 400-22) that rely heavily on extracts from
and summaries of the 1897 volume (especially
1897:544-605).

JUDITH BERMAN

1 95

George Hunt's Contribution to SOSSKwl
The unpublished materials in Boas' papers have steadily
expanded our understanding of the magnitude of
George Hunt's contribution to Boas' work (Berman 1 994,
1996, n.d.Jacknis 1991, 1992). What they show about
his labors in relation to Boas' first important mono-
graph is no exception.

The title page of SOSSKwl states, "Based on Per-
sonal Observations and on Notes Made by Mr. George
Hunt." In the preface to the volume. Boas goes further:

The great body of facts presented here were
observed and recorded by Mr. George Hunt,
of Fort Rupert, British Columbia, who takes
deep interest in everything pertaining to the
ethnology of the KwakiutI Indians and to
whom I am under great obligations. I am
indebted to him also for explanations of
ceremonials witnessed by myself, but the
purport of which was difficult to understand,
and for finding the Indians who were able to
give explanations on certain points. (Boas
1897:31 5)

These acknowledgments, while generous, do not
supply a complete picture of Hunt's contributions to
the volume. Hunt played an important role in at least
three areas that Boas does not address directly. First,
Hunt was a crucial figure in the acquisition of several
collections of Kwakwaka'wakw ceremonial objects
that are illustrated and discussed in the book, includ-
ing the collection used most extensively— that of Johan
Adrian Jacobsen. Jacobsen made the collection with
Hunt's assistance in 1881-82 for the Berlin Museum
fur Volkerkunde, then the Royal Ethnological Museum
(Berman n.d.; Cole 1 985:60-7; Jacknis 1991:181)."^

Second, Hunt made possible in every way Boas'
"personal observations" of the 1 894-95 ceremonial
(Berman n.d.; Rohner 1969:177-87). Hunt fed and
housed Boas during the ceremonial; he advised Boas
how to go about his work; he searched out and pur-
chased objects for the collections Boas was making;
he took Boas to feasts that were occurring at all times
of the day and night; and he explained and interpreted
for Boas constantly.

The third area in which Hunt made a major un-
acknowledged contribution to this volume is in its
actual writing, a role that goes far beyond what we
would today understand by the making of "notes" or
the recording of "facts." Hunt, for example, provided
much if not all of the myth material that explains the
origin of the various dances and masks of the Winter
Ceremonial (APS-KM i:31 -67, 100-10, 180-9,212-24;
Hunt to Boas, 20 March, 23 April, 9 July, 21 Octo-
ber, 15 January 1895, AMNH-HAR). This is not sur-
prising, given Hunt's subsequent labors on behalf of
Kwakwaka'wakw oral literature.

What is less expected is that Hunt's English-lan-
guage manuscripts functioned as the first draft of the
chapter of the book that purports to present Boas'
personal observations of the 1 894-95 Winter Ceremo-
nial (Boas 1897:544-606). Boas, in fact, prefaces this
chapter by saying, "I will describe the ceremonial as it
actually took place and so far as I witnessed it"
(1897:544-5)." Now, Boas did indeed witness these
events, but the descriptions we have are largely from
Hunt. Hunt made use of materials supplied to him by
Boas, but he elaborated on and expanded them greatly;
in one place he states that he wrote out 1 5 pages for
a single page of Boas' notes (Hunt to Boas, 1 6 Febru-
ary, 9 March 1 896, APS-BPC).

Hunt's first drafts of this chapter of SOSSKwl sur-
vive only as fragments scattered through one of the
manuscript collections under Boas' name at the APS
(APS-KM i, xi). The pages, when brought together, con-
sist of two sections of text. The first, 1 2 pages in length,
bears Hunt's page numbers 1 8-29 (APS-KM i, vi). There
is some difficulty with the page numbering of the sec-
ond section, but it appears to consist of Hunt's pages
35-56, minus pages 51-2, a total of 20 pages.

These materials are not to be found in any pub-
lished or unpublished list of Hunt manuscripts (cf Boas
1921:1469-73). The handwriting and transcription
practices clearly date them to the mid-1 890s. The
Boas-Hunt correspondence provides more precise clues
to the date of the manuscripts. They are most likely

1 96

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

those referred to by Hunt in letters sent during 1 896.
Hunt writes, "now I am Writing out the Dances you;v
seen While you was here" (Hunt to Boas, 4 January 1 896,
APS-KM vi; see also Hunt to Boas, 1 6 February, 9 March,
30 April, 9 July 1 896, APS-BPC).

The first set (1 2 pages handwriten) corresponds
closely to pages 577-81 of SOSSKwI. The first 7 pages
of the second set correspond to pages 586-89 of
SOSSKwI.^^ The remainder includes a passage that was
not reproduced in SOSSKwI but that appears in a later
volume (Boas and Hunt 1905:484-91). The passage
describes an episode that is partially summed up in
one sentence in the third paragraph on page 589: "In
the evening a feast was given, the blankets were dis-
tributed, and shortly after the beginning of the feast
thehiimats 'a Yaqois came in and danced three times."

The gaps in page numbering indicate that pages
are missing from the Hunt manuscripts. Judging from
the correspondence, several other sections of manu-
script are missing as well. On the last page of extant
manuscript (p. 56), Hunt writes, "now after this I will
write about what the Koskimo Done on the 25th of
Nov" (KM vi). In Boas' published version those events
are described in 12 pages of typeset prose (Boas
1897:589-600). Together with another 6 published
pages, describing the final events of the 1 894-95 Win-
ter Ceremonial, this would equal at least another 40
handwritten pages of Hunt manuscript. All in all, about
1 00 pages of Hunt's draft of this chapter are missing.

Comparison of an extended section of Hunt's manu-
script with Boas' published version shows how closely
Boas followed Hunt's first draft. Hunt wrote:

all the time the new Hamadga [Hamats'a]
Was Dancing. liigaxstaaq Halding a copper in
his Hand and a woman came out With a strip
of calico about 40 yards in length this
women name is ayaga. she toked the calico
all Round the fire, and the Hamadga Danced
Between the fire and the calico, he Wore the
Balsam Pine Branch and Danced the two first
song with it on. and after the singers sang
the two songs, then he iii.abala came foward
and asked the singers to wait awhile and not
to sing, and he asked tdgumalis to come and

make a speach and he tdgiimali's came and
stand up at the Rear End of the House, and
he said, yes you my children yes I for I am
your Box your mind for I Keep all the old
sayings in my Head and I have seen thing in
my youngs Days that you young men never
have Heard of and seen, and it is good to
have one old man to show you all this
things, now I am going to this Hamadga and
ondress, the Dress that was Put on him By
the Bax-baqalanoxsiwi for I am he, said he the
old man. and he Walked up to the Hamadga
and toked the Head Ring off first and next he
take off the neck Ring off and the arms and
legs Ring, then he gived the Rings of Balsam
Pine Branch to Lamaia and he the old man
asked nawiikala to Bring the Blanket and the
Red cedar Bark, then he nawakala Went Back
into a Bed Room for about one minut and he
Brought all that the old man asked for, and
he nawakala gived the Blue Blanket first to
the old man. and he Put the Blanket on to the
Hamadga and again the old man toked the
neck Ring and put it on to the neck of the
Hamadga and again the old man toked the
apron and Put that on and next the arms and
legs Ring all of Red Ceder Bark Rings then
last of all he toked the Eagles Down and Put
it on to the Red ceder Bark Dress of the
Hamadga. then the old man togiimalis step in
front of the Hamadga and said it is all Done.
(APS-KM i:24-5)

For this passage, Boas has:

After this song LoXuaxstaak" arose in the rear
of the house, holding a copper, and a
woman named Ayaqa, brought a strip of
calico about 40 yards long, which was
unrolled and spread in a circle around the
fire. . . . Then the singers began the second
song: . . .The hamats'as were dancing be-
tween the calico and the fire in a squatting
position. Their attendants tried to pacify
them with cries of "hoip," and the women
danced for them. Then ALabala stepped
forward and asked the singers to wait before
beginning the third song. He called his
speaker, Toqoamalis, who took his position
in the rear of the house, and addressed the
people as follows:

"Yes, my children, I am the storage box
of your thoughts, for I remember all the old
tales, and in my young days I have seen
things which you young people never heard
of. It is good that there is one old man who
can show you all these things. Now I will go
to this hiimatsa and take off the dress that
BaxbakualanuXsTwae put on him." He

JUDITH BERMAN

1 97

stepped up to the hamatsa, who was
standing in the rear of the house, and took
off his head ring first, then his neck ring. He
cut off the arm rings and anklets and gave
them to LamaLa. Then he asked Nauaqala to
bring blankets and ornaments made of red
cedar bark. Nauaqala went to fetch them
from his bedroom, and when he had returned,
Toqoamalis proceeded to dress the hiimats'a.
He put the blue blanket over his back and
cedar bark ornaments on his head, his neck,
his arms, and around his ankles. He also tied
a dancing apron around his waist and
strewed eagle down on his head. Then he
said, "It is done." (Boas 1897:578-79)

There are, of courses, differences in the two pas-
sages. Boas made revisions to Hunt's Kwak'wala
transcription, and, as is obvious, he divided Hunt's draft
into paragraphs, corrected Hunt's spelling and gram-
mar, and, in places, altered Hunt's wording. Boas also
changed the sequence of some elements in his ver-
sion. For example, while Hunt grouped the Hamats a's
four songs in an earlier place in the text, Boas scat-
tered the songs throughout, with one occurring in this
very passage (omitted at ellipsis).

Finally, Boas omitted or misconstrued some infor-
mation in Hunt's text. Hunt, for example, quotes
Togiimalis as saying, "now I am going to thisHamadga
and ondress, the Dress that was Put on him By the
Baxbaqalanoxsiwi for I am he." The old man, for that
moment, is assuming the roleofBaxwbakwalanuxsiwe',
theHamats'a's initiating spirit. Boas leaves this identifi-
cation out. In another passage. Hunt writes about a
man who angrily tears up a blanket, which he deemed
an insulting gift, and throws it in the fire. The man says,
"now you that set on the fire take that to Keep you
warm" (APS-KM i:28-9). The insulted man is referring to
K'waxtJala, the "One-Sitting-on-the-Fire," a being to
whom food and prayers were given at Kwak-
waka'wakw feasts (Boas 1921:1 332). Boas altered
Hunt's words to, "Now you who saw it in the fire take
good care to keep it warm" (Boas 1897:580), prob-
ably because he did not yet know about this being.

Despite the numerous minor differences, the over-
all similarity of these passages is clear. More of these

early manuscript pages may yet be found among Boas'
papers. To determine the total portion of the volume
drafted by Hunt from Boas' notes may no longer be
possible at this date, but Hunt's role was clearly much
greater than had been thought.

Hunt's Revisions and Corrections to Social
Organization

Hunt's involvement with SOSSKwl6\6 not end with
its publication or even with the appearance several
years later of the corrected Kwak'wala texts of a num-
ber of the Winter Ceremonial songs, and the Kwak'wala
portion of several myth and historical narratives in the
volume (Boas and Hunt 1905:247-9, 271-8, 354-5,
41 8-24, 447-84). Over 20 years later. Hunt wrote to
Boas, saying, "now about the Book with the many
illustrations [i.e., SOSSKwf\, there are so many mistakes
. . . that I think should Be Put to Rights Befor one of us
Die" (Hunt to Boas, 7 June 1 920, APS-BPC). Boas replied
that he was "very anxious" to have the mistakes cor-
rected and asked Hunt to begin (Boas to Hunt. 22 July
1920, APS-BPC; see also Hunt to Boas, 4 February, 21
May 1 920, APS-BPC; APS-RMC).

Hunt began to produce the corrections to
SOSSKwl in August or September 1 920, consulting
Kwakwaka'wakw elders in order to do so (Hunt to
Boas, 25 September, 1 4 October 1 920, APS-BPC; APS-
LKM:2-3). He generated two batches of revisions to
the volume, 109 pages during 1920-21 and another
54 pages in 1924, and then laid the task aside for
seven years (Hunt to Boas, 1 4 January, 25 April 1 921 ,
1 January, 31 May 1924, APS-BPC; APS-KM iii:1679;
APS-LKM:3-5).

In early 1 931 , at Boas' request. Hunt took the task
up once again (Hunt to Boas, 1 7 February 1 931 , APS-
BPC). From that point until his death in September 1 933,
Hunt was entirely occupied with the revisions (J-
Cadwallader to Boas, 6 September 1 933, APS-BPC).
During this period, he produced over 670 pages of
additional corrections and comments on the volume
(Hunt to Boas, 17 February 1931, APS-BPC; Hunt to

1 98

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Boas, 27 July 1933, KM v;J. Hunt to Boas, 26 Septem-
ber 1933, APS-BPC). Altogether, Hunt's revisions to
SOSSKwl amount to over 800 pages of manuscript,
which today are to be found in one of the unindexed
masses of Boas' Kwakwaka'wakw papers at the APS
(APS-KM).

The method by which these revisions were pro-
duced differed from what was typical of the Boas-
Hunt collaboration. Here, Boas did not prompt Hunt
with specific questions. Rather, he told Hunt to "sim-
ply mark the page [of the published volume] and then
say what you want to say about it" (Boas to Hunt, 22
July 1 920, APS-BPC). Hunt corrected and added to the
text at his own initiative. As he stated, "I see that I got
to go all through the Book, to do it Rightly, some times
I got to write some other story that Belong to it, to
Explain the meaning of it" (Hunt to Boas, 1 7 February
1931, APS-BPC). In consequence. Boas' own research
agenda has less of an imprint here than elsewhere in
Hunt's work. This renders these materials more hetero-
geneous, but perhaps even more interesting.

Many of the revisions are, in fact, corrections to
the Kwak'wala of SOSSKwl. As much as a third of the
manuscript pages was copied from the original text
with the addition only of new transcriptions of
Kwak'wala names and other words. Boas discarded
those pages, preserving a record of the corrections.

Hunt also revised songs and texts in the volume
according to the vastly improved standards that he
and Boas had achieved by the later decades of their
collaboration. (Hunt produced two or more slightly
different corrected versions of some songs and
texts.) There remain, however, continuing problems
with Hunt's notation of glottalized versus non-
glottalized sonorants (see Berman 1994:494). Boas
generally corrected these as he compiled Hunt's new
transcriptions.

Most of Hunt's revisions, though, are to the ethno-
graphic content of the volume. These revisions, largely
in English, include correction, expansion, and addition
of numerous points of ethnographic and ethnohistorical

detail. The very first corrections Hunt transmitted were
to the identifications of the objects illustrating
SOSSKwl. As Boas stated in an unpublished article.

The explanations of these specimens given
at that time [1894] were based upon
information given to me by the Indians from
whom I purchased the specimens, in part
corroborated by inquiries among others,
although these were difficult on account of
secrecy involved in the purchase of the
masks. The specimens collected by Mr.
Jacobsen were explained on the basis of
illustrations which Prof. Albert Crunwald of
Berlin had the kindness to make for me and
which I showed to the Indians. I did not
succeed always in finding the owner of the
objects in question, so that there remained
some uncertainty in regard to the right
interpretation of the objects. ... I requested
[George Hunt] particularly to find the owners
of the specimens illustrated in my report and
to obtain further information in regard to the
objects. In some cases his information differs
from the explanation previously given, while
in other cases it is more specific than what I
was able to present in my previous report.
(APS-RMC:l-2)

Hunt made a kind of catalogue of the illustrations
of the volume giving "the right name of the masks on
the Book and who there Belong to," with the page and
figure number from SOSSKwl and a paragraph or more
of English description. The catalogue of nearly 50 manu-
script pages covers most of the illustrations in the book
of Kwakwaka'wakw material (APS-KM iii: 1877-93,
1 904-20, 1 927-39). "|T]his is all that I know," said Hunt,
"and what I Dont Know I pass them" (APS-KM iii: 1 239).

Hunt's later batches of revisions included more ex-
tended commentary on some of the masks and danc-
ers. One example is Hunt's statement about the
nulamai, a type of dancer. In the original. Boas wrote.

The noonLHmala (pi. of nuiamaf) or "fool
dancers" [a particular Winter Ceremonial
dance] ... are initiated by a fabulous people,
the Ai asimk-, who are believed to live near a
lake inland from i iXsTwae. Their village is
believed to be on an island floating on the
lake. In olden times a man went beaver
hunting and fell in with these people. He
came back exhausted and "crazy." . . . From
him the nooiiLFimala are said to derive their
origin. (Boas 1 897:468)

JUDITH BERMAN

1 99

Hunt's comment on this passage was as follows:

the iiLlESEmk or Back of the woods living tribe .
. . use to live eat [at] xwEtes which are called
xuyiilas. and xhe. gosgemox tribe use to live eat
[at] gose on the south of cape scot, and the
gosge^mox tribe went to war against the
xuyiilas tribe, and the gosgemox on the second
war Drove the xuyiilas in [to] the wood . . . and
from that time the gosgemox tribe lived at
xwEtcs. so the xuyiilas is not a spirit But a
common [secular] People who use to come and
Halibut fishing at Place called qlbides or Patch on
the Beach . . . about one Mile and Half East of
ilEx-sewe . and as soon as the ailESEmk People
sees a strangers canoe comeing then they
Paddle ashore and Run away to their Home at a
large lake long Ways back of ilEx-sewe. which
supposed to Have floating Island with their
Houses Built on it. these what the Kwagut tribes
calls HilESEink. are Really the xuyiiliis. and I was
told that they are the first People that the
wolves give the nuniEm or ail turn craze Dance
to [a Winter Ceremonial of some of the northern
Kwakwaka'wakw tribes] . . . and from the
xuyiiliis tribe, the gosgemox got the Dance
[ceremonial] and from the gosgemox the
nEqamgElisEia got it. and from them the
LlaUHseqwiilii got the nunlnm Dance [ceremo-
nial], and from the [time of the] wolves the
nunlm [ceremonial], and nulEmalH. or fool Dance
was always kept togather. (APS-KM v;5601-2)

There are a number of notable points in Hunt's com-
mentary. Among other things, it both agrees with and
adds to the scanty information available about the
Xuyalas division of the Kwakwaka'wakw, a group that
was already extinct by the time of Boas' first fieldwork
and is not even mentioned in his comprehensive list of
Kwakwaka'wakw divisions and descent groups (Boas
1966:38-41, 44). Hunt also gives a fuller account of
the historical spread of the nunlam dance ceremonial
than is to be found elsewhere (Boas 1966:400-1).

Another point of interest is the nature of the dis-
agreement between Boas' and Hunt's versions of the
origin of the nunlam dance. To assume that Hunt's
identification of the"aL!ESEmk" as theXuyaias division
is historically correct does not require that we reject
Boas' identification of the same as a population of spir-
its. One of the characteristics of 19th-century Kwak-
waka'wakw ceremonialism was the possession by

each descent group of an origin myth that, among
other things, specified the origin of the ceremonies
owned by that descent group's noble lines. These ori-
gin myths, while distinct in many details of content,
are formally quite similar, and Boas' brief synopsis of
the origin of the fool dancers is in consonance with
the general pattern. The relationship between Hunt's
account and Boas' version (which Boas may well have
obtained through Hunt) might also therefore count as
evidence for how historical knowledge both coexisted
with and was assimilated into the formal patterns of
myth and ceremony.

Another example of the type of information in these
revisions is Hunt's commentary on the mask illustrated
on page 628 of SOSSKwl (Fig. 59). This mask was de-
scribed by Boas as a "Laolaxa mask representing the
killer whale . . . Collected by A.Jacobsen." Hunt stated
that the object was, rather, a killer whale mask be-
longing to the more important t 'set 'seka (Winter Cer-
emonial) dance complex, and he distinguished between
ihet'set'seka killer whale dance, thed/a 'walaxa killer
whale dance (the one to which Boas refers in the origi-
nal), and the "Baxus Hamaxalal or summer time Keller
whale Dance."

Hunt further asserts that the mask illustrated was
used at the initiation of his own wife ("Llalelelakw or
spouter of the House, who Belong to the ya'ex-agnme
descent group"). This statement seems eminently be-
lievable, given the extent of Hunt's involvement in
Jacobsen's collecting activities; Hunt could well have
been the means by which the mask came into
jacobsen's hands. Hunt goes on to supply an account
of the event in which this mask was used:

she [Hunt's wife] Desappeared on the Beach
while she was Degging for clams, where they
found all her cloths Piled up . . . and she stay
away one whole month. (APS-KM v:5613-4)

New songs were composed for Hunt's wife and re-
hearsed. The people assembled,

and then the killer whale mask or
hEmaxaliiEmi come out of the secret Room

200

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

and [went] spouting around the fire, with fin
on his Back untill he go up to the Door, then
the user Pulled the string and the fin stand up
Right, and it Divide apart and the face open
out and the tail went up and Down, and it
keep that way untill it went into the secret
Room, then Llaleklakw came out of the
secret Room and Danced with her two
Hands Hiden under her Blanket then after her
song Ended she went Back in the secret
Room again she wear all Pure Red loose
[cedar bark] neck and head Ring. (APS-KM
v:5614; see also APS-KM iii:1938)

Hunt's revisions to SOSS/Cw/ contain not just addi-
tions of detail to the ethnographic record but also
commentary that, especially in conjunction with other
Hunt materials, suggests broader reinterpretations of
the Winter Ceremonial and other aspects of 1 9th-cen-
tury Kwakwaka'wakw cosmology and culture. For
example, on page 41 8 of SOSSKwl Boas discusses the
descent-group ancestors' acquisition of winter dances
in myth. Hunt's amplifications place those events within
a larger framework of Kwakwaka'wakw cosmogony.

Hunt states that the very first winter dance, an event
of major cosmogonic implications, was held by Raven
and Mink and their party of the "myth People," who
"were Birds and anamals yet they can talk to Each
other and understand Each other, these are called the
myth People or nux'nemes" (APS-KM vi:4969). In order
to perform the ceremonial, the myth people (or "Historic
People," as Hunt more often called them) took off their
animal shapes. Some of them dressed in their animal
masks afterward, while others remained in human form
(Boas and Hunt 1905:489; also Boas 1966:258). This
event was the beginning of the separation between
the human realm and the spirit realm of the animals.

The first winter dances of humanity were based on
the animal natures of the primordial generation:

and what Ever kind of Bird a man Belongs to
his Dance will Be as he was Befor he was
turned into a man. and [for those who were]
the animals [it is] the same. (APS-KM vi:4969)

Hunt lists some of the dances of "the myth people,"
which include the Wolf Dancer, the Fool Dancer (for

Deer), the Grizzly Bear Dancer, the Raven Dancer, the
Thunderbird Dancer, and others. In his cosmology these
archaic dances predate those acquired in the age of
myth proper (nuyam), when the children and grand-
children of the first generation of transformed, secular-
ized beings grew to human adulthood, ventured into
the deep forest or out to sea, acquired spiritual wealth,
and founded descent groups:

these spirits appears to the first man of each
one clan or nsmemot and tells him what to
Do. what kind of Dances he will use. [But]
that is after the myth People Past. (APS-KM
vi:4969)

The Winter Ceremonial of his day, Hunt argues in
these pages, evolved through a series of accretions:
beginning with the dances passed down from one's
ancestor, based on his spirit nature, growing through
the addition of dances such as the Tuxw'id and
Hamshamt'sas acquired from spirits by the early gen-
erations of humanity; and ending in the historic period
with acquisition of the Hamat'sa complex through mar-
riage and war from the northern neighbors of the
Kwakwaka'wakw.^^ In Hunt's view, the dance acquisi-
tion stories belong to a range of ethnoliterary genres
that correspond to these developmental stages of the
cosmos. As Hunt states elsewhere, the eponymous
"nux'nQmes" inuxwni' mis) are stories told about the
primordial beings; following this are "nuyEm", stories
concerning the first generations after the first winter
dance; then come "q!a'yul" (.k'ayuf), "tale[s] about
the forefathers" that occurred after the end of the myth
age, within the historical memory of latter-day humans;
and finally there are "q!a'yala" {k 'ayola), a person "tell-
ing what he have seen and what he Heard his Friends
talking about" (APS-KM iii:4624).

In his discussions of myth and the Winter Ceremo-
nial, Boas did not ignore the varieties of acquisition
story. He treated them, though, as story types of equal
significance, coexisting, as it were, in ethnoliterary time
and space. In these late unpublished manuscripts. Hunt
places not just the dances but also the stories about

JUDITH BERMAN

201

their origins within the framework of a developing, trans-
forming universe.

Hunt's focus on the History People and their trans-
formation suggests that the key to the underlying mean-
ing of the Winter Ceremonial should be sought there, in
the story of its origin, and not just in the elaboration of
the hereditary prerogatives that are the actual dances.
(Boas published several versions of the story under
various titles, the first being "Mink and the Wolves";
Boas 1897:538-9; 1930 [l]:57-86, 86-92, 1943:22;
Boas and Hunt 1 906:1 03-1 3; see Berman 1 991 :698-
702; 2000). It is hard to say whether the emergence of
this cosmogonic framework is the result of Hunt's
greater freedom to set his own agenda in these revi-
sions or whether it is due in some measure to the time
he spent in the late 1920s learning what the Winter
Ceremonial's hereditary officers had previously kept
"strickly secret" (Hunt to Boas 1 5 June 1 926, APS-BPC).
Either way, it offers a tantalizing glimpse of a Kwak-
waka'wakw cosmological order, an order for which
anthropologists have hitherto been able to search only
indirectly, through complicated interpretive operations
(Berman 1991; Goldman 1975;Walens 1981).

As elsewhere in Boas' unpublished papers. Hunt's
revisions to SOSSKwl a\so contain rich nuggets of eth-
nographic and ethnohistorical information about other
peoples on the coast. In several places he discusses
the movement and transfer of dances and dance ele-
ments from group to group. Hunt was not merely echo-
ing Boas' interest in diffusion; he was clearly fascinated
by the topic on his own account. He himself had seen
much change in the winter dances since his youth,
when he danced for seven chiefs of the old-time
Kwagui (Boas 1966:256). "[S]ince they got mixed
in with the [dances of the] Heldzaqw [Heiltsuk] and
the eawek!enox [Oowekeeno] there lots of change in
the way they dance now" (APS-KM vi:4971-2).

In one manuscript, as a comment on Boas' discus-
sion of Nuu-chah-nulth dances in SOSSKwl (Boas
1897:632-5), Hunt relates his experience at a Nuu-
chah-nulth [Nootka] wolf dance held around 1917:

202

about fifteen year ago. my son Johny and me
went to Nootka or motsludox or Deer tribe . .
. and geting Dark that Evening I took notice
that all the young men walk togather. and
late in the night I Heard lots of wolves
Howling in the woods long ways off . . . and
the wolves Howl Every night, and on the
fourth Evening the wolves Howled most. ... I
did not sleep much that night, and Early in
the morning I got up and Joh[n]ey and me
went out of the House . . . the wolves came
at the Right side of the House in a file,
wearing wolfs mask as is show on Page 477
Plate 36 [of SOSSKwl] and Holding their
Hand with their thumbs as they Do on the
Picture . . . (APS-KM v:5356-7)

In this manuscript Hunt also discusses the history
of that particular Wolf Dance, recounts the myth of its
origin, and describes the ceremonial in some detail
(APS-KM v:5356-74). He was surprised at some of the
elements in the dance, including a song with Kwak'wala
words that derived from the Hamat'sa ceremonial of
the Kwakwaka'wakw. Hunt was told that the chiefs
wife, who came from the'Namgis division of the
Kwakwaka'wakw, had asked a visiting relative to make
her Nuu-chah-nulth husband aHamat'sa,

and [her relative] said to her jokeingly o you
can Have it. But my songs I cant give them
away . . . and the women said give me one
song if it is aBaxus [baxwas; i.e., profane or
ordinary] song for these People Dont know
ts!ets!eqa from Baxus. and she Did not aske
for a name for the Hamats!a and he sung the
thanking song or molxeduyu song and she
was so Pleaced that she foget to say more.
(APS-KM v:5359)

In several places in his revisions. Hunt comments
on the acquisition of Winter Ceremonial dances through
warfare (e.g., APS-KM vi:5051-9). This was one of the
means by which the dances spread north all the way
to the Tsimshian and Tlingit, as Hunt had witnessed in
his youth. His discussion of the topic also imparts de-
tails about the indigenous slave trade on the North
Pacific Coast during the 1 9th century.

According to Hunt, it was common practice to
question war captives in detail about the ceremonials
into which they had been initiated when they were
free. "|T|he northern People learn about the winter dance

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

. . . from their slaves" (APS-KM v:5420). Hunt tells the
following story about "a'maxs the great warrior of the
gedaxai [Kitkatia] tribe" (APS-KM v:5418-20; Hunt to
Boas, 1 4 December 1 92 1 , APS-BPC). Some time during
the 1 850s, "a'maxs" (that is, the Coast Tsimshian per-
son named Haymaas) killed a Kwagut chief and took
the chiefs sisters prisoner. Seven or eight years later,
one of the women who had been captured returned
to Fort Rupert, probably after having been bought and
freed by an HBC factor at Fort Simpson. She told the
Kwagul how she and her sisters had been interrogated
by their captors. First they were asked

if they were chiefs Daughters or sisters, and
she said yes I am sister of . . . the head chief
of the Kwakwak!um clan of the q!umoyEwe .
said she. and then the man . . . ask what kind
of Dance you have in the winter, and she say
we ts!ets!eqa [the major Kwakwaka'wakw
Winter Ceremonial] ... my Elder sister is meia
Dancer . . . and . . . tamer Dancer, and lots of
other kind of other [dances], and the man
said the slave we took Before you said that
also you have the Hamatsle [a much higher-
ranking dance] and the loiEin [Ghost] Dance
also, yes she said true about the Hamatsia . . .
But the lotEm [or] . . . nonlEm . . . Dance Dont
Belong to the Kwaguh it Belongst to the
Llatlaseqwala [and other northern
Kwakwaka'wakw divisions]. ... so By the
slaves they try to learn all they can, about
the names and the . . . dances, and Even their
. . . son[g]s. and a maxs never keep lot of
slaves, for he sells them, firther up north . .
and when their sold, the new owner aske the
same Questions. (APS-KM v:5419-20)

The information from the Fort Rupert woman evidently
motivated Haymaas to go to war against the north-
ern divisions of the Kwakwaka'wakw. Once more, he
took prisoners and interrogated them about their
dances, and this time he learned all about the nuniam
Dance as well. He eventually sold these latter prison-
ers to a Tongass Tlingit man, and as a boy Hunt met
them in his great-uncle's town of Daasaxakw.

Not all of Hunt's ethnohistorical commentary in
these revisions concerns dances and ceremonials. For
example, he also discusses trade in mundane items:

while I stay with my grandfather [i.e., great-
uncle] at tongas ... I use to aske him about

Defferent thing, where they came from, and
how he get them, then he alway say that the
chelgat [Chilkat division of the Tlingit] People
Brought . . . fancy Braided mats and small
fancy Braided Baskets with Rattleing covers
on them and carvings of wood and Ivory and
the copper breslets . . . and other copper
implements are Brought By the xo neya
[Heinya division of the Tlingit] People to sell
to us, said he. (APS-KM iv:4897)

One illustration of aTlingit oil dish carved like a seal
(Boas 1 897:393; see Fig. 59) sparked atrain of thought
regarding which designs in North Pacific Coast art are
merely decorative and which represent the hereditary
privileges used by the aristocracy— what in Kwak'wala
Hunt refers to as "k!eso'." Hunt writes,

I had two [Tongass Tlingit] uncles who were
good carvers, and lots of their People, and
the other tribes come and ask them to make
a grease Dish for them, and my uncle . . . ask
the man what well I carve on it. and the man
say to him. you carve on it anything you like
on it that will make it look Pretty, now thes I
seen for I use to Be [with] my uncles all the
time, and from that time. I thought these
kind of Dishes is not a k!eso . now another
thing, a man come to my uncles, and say to
them I come to ask you to carve a totem
Pole for me. and now my uncle ask the man
How many figure you want me to Put on the
Pole . . . and [if| the man said I want sea
Raven or nashak yai at the Bottom, and
above this will be yan tan or great Whale.
and above it will be yai or Raven, and above
it will Be lanekluxu or the mink, and above
will Be woman and her. toad, or sawat.
ganaow and on the top of the Pole will Be yai
or Raven sitting now. the carver cant add
Enything onto those figures. Because they are
true k!eso's. and that is the way the other
totem Poles, are made, and also Big feasting
Dishes they have to Be made By the carver
according to what the chief told him to
carve onto them or House Post, for these are
true k!eso'. (APS-KM v:4896-7r'

What, if anything, did Boas do with these hundreds
of pages of manuscript? In the early 1 920s he put to-
gether a short article ("Remarks on Masks . . .," APS-
RMC) based closely on Hunt's first batch of revisions
to SOSSKwl, the list of corrections to the illustrations.
Boas hoped that the National Museum of Natural

JUDITH BERMAN

203

History would publish this article as it had the original,
but he was unable to excite any interest in that quar-
ter (j. R. Swanton to Boas, 1 8 June 1 924, APS-RMC).

Boas incorporated other revisions into the manu-
script that was published posthumously as KwakiutI
Ethnography. The revisions appear primarily in the two
chapters on the Winter Ceremonial (Boas 1966:171-
98). The first of these chapters, as already noted, con-
sists largely of material taken from the original SOSSKwl;
the corrected Kwak'wala transcriptions are just about
the only additions. The second chapter is a compila-
tion of English paraphrase from published Hunt texts
(Boas 1930:57-131) that is interpolated with material
from both the original text of SOSSKwl and Hunt's later
commentary on that text. Some, but by no means all,
of Hunt's revisions are credited to him.

The revisions that Boas saw to print are only a small
portion of the whole. Their scope is such that any evalu-
ation of the original monograph, or any reinterpreta-
tion of the Kwakwaka'wakw Winter Ceremonial, for
that matter, should not be made without them.

Nuu-chah-nulth Tales

One last set of Hunt documents needs to be men-
tioned: a manuscript collection of Nuu-chah-nulth
myths, tales, and prayers in English, numbering over
500 pages. George Hunt wrote these down during
the Jesup Expedition period, and many of them may
be connected to the Nuu-chah-nulth objects that Hunt
purchased for the AMNH (Boas to Hunt, 4 March 1 904,
AMNH-HCF; Boas to Hunt, 1 1 April 1 903, AMNH-HAR).
One Nuu-chah-nulth myth collected by Hunt (and pub-
lished by Boas as a Kwak'wala text) refers to a whal-
ers' purification shrine now in the collections of the
AMNH (Boas 1930 [l]:257-65).

Most of the written Nuu-chah-nulth materials were
apparently related to Hunt by a man named Lewis
who returned with Hunt to Fort Rupert after the latter's
1903 collecting expedition on the west coast of
Vancouver Island (Hunt to Boas, 25 November 1904,
AMNH-HAR; Hunt to Boas, 22 January 1904, AMNH-

204

HCF). Lewis is perhaps the "alewes, a Kayoquath" men-
tioned several times in the manuscript. Hunt's Nuu-
chah-nulth manuscripts seem to have bounced back
and forth between Boas and Edward Sapir over the
years; they are currently catalogued under Sapir's name
at the American Philosophical Society (APS-SHN)."

Conclusion

The manuscripts discussed here represent only the high-
lights of the unpublished North Pacific materials in Boas'
papers. One could also mention his files on Fort Rupert
social organization; linguistic materials on Tsimshian,
Aleut, and other North Pacific languages by his stu-
dents and correspondents; and more Hunt writings on
everything from the history of certain Kwakwaka'wakw
coppers to Hunt's Tlingit mother's clan myths. This
unpublished material, taken as a whole, could fill six or
more published volumes that would each add much
to our understanding of the Native peoples of the
region and of Boas' own work.

Although there is a great deal more to be said on
the latter subject, two points are striking. The first is
how much Boas' output on the Kwakwaka'wakw was
dependent on Hunt's vast knowledge and ceaseless
labor. Of the proverbial "five-foot shelf of Kwak-
waka'wakw materials, all but a few inches turn out to
originate with Hunt himself. Even those few seem to
be shrinking as we learn more.

The magnitude of Hunt's contribution is so great
that it makes us uneasy to see Boas' name alone on
the cover of most of these volumes. True, Boas always
acknowledged Hunt's contribution: Hunt's name is even
on the title page of SOSSKwl and on the cover of the
first two text volumes (Boas and Hunt 1905, 1906).
Why Boas chose to relegate mention of Hunt to the
prefaces of the later text volumes is unknown, but it
was not because Hunt's contribution was any less.
The latter practice may have been more in line with
scholarly etiquette of the time: Boas also used exten-
sive notes of (white) whaling captains in his later Inuit
monographs and, again, acknowledged that fact on

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

title pages and in his prefaces but not on the covers
(1 901 :4-5, 1 907:374-5). Still, from a modern perspec-
tive, the suggestion of sole authorship is misleading.

At the same time, Boas' contribution should not
be undervalued. Although the fact is often obscured
by the way in which Boas published Hunt's materials,
Boas was largely responsible for the scope and focus
of Hunt's work. With some exceptions, of which the
revisions to SOSSKwl are the most significant, he set
the research agenda. He picked the topics to be in-
vestigated, asked Hunt the specific questions, and
decided when further details were needed and when
it was time to move on to the next topic. And, of
course, he provided the money that enabled Hunt to
devote so much of his life to ethnography.

The second important insight to emerge from the
unpublished materials is how, while anthropologists
have underestimated Hunt's contribution to Boas'
Kwakwaka'wakw publications, they may also have
underestimated Boas. As we have seen, Boas was of-
ten reluctant to formalize and make explicit the no-
tions driving his research, and his thinking on a subject
cannot always be gauged by his published comments.
Some of his most interesting anthropological thinking
seems to have taken place out of sight. These unpub-
lished materials allow us glimpses of it.

Acknowledgments

1 am indebted to the staffs of the American Philosophi-
cal Society, the Anthropology Archives of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History, the Columbia Univer-
sity Rare Book and Manuscript Library, and the Hudson's
Bay Company Archives at the Provincial Archives of
Manitoba for their aid in locating numerous manuscripts
and photographs. Igor Krupnik offered helpful com-
ments on the final form of the paper, and Marie-Lucie
Tarpent kindly dug up hard-to-find references. I would
particularly like to thank Bill Holm for making a copy of
Hunt's memorandum book available to me, and Beth
Carroll-Horrocks, formerly the manuscript librarian at
the APS, for her endless patience and helpfulness.

Notes

1 . Two orthographies are used here to tran-
scribe Kwak'wala words. In quotations from Boas
and Hunt, words are spelled as closely as pos-
sible to the way they wrote them, within the con-
straints of utilizing those characters represented
in the First Nations Courier New Font and First
Nations StillMore Font. All other words are tran-
scribed from Boas' or Hunt's original spellings into
the standardized orthography of the U'mista Cul-
tural Centre of Alert Bay, B.C., produced with First
Nations Courier New font. Both fonts were cre-
ated by Robert C. Hemphill of Port Hardy, B.C..

2. Hunt's sources included George
Blenkinsop, the HBC officer in charge of Fort
Rupert at the time, and an Indian man named
Hemisilakw. The latter may be Hunt's friend Tom
Hemaselakw, one of the Kwakwaka'wakw troupe
who accompanied Hunt to the 1 893 World's
Columbian Exhibition in Chicago. Hemaselakw's
father and perhaps mother were from the
T'lat'lasikwala division of the Kwakwaka'wakw
(APS-KM v:5420).

3. Hunt says the final confrontation occurred
af Nawidi itself, i.e., "Sutil Point," but'Nawidi is
elsewhere said to be Cape Commerell, at the tip
of Vancouver Island (Boas 1 934, maps 3, 20). Hunt
perhaps means "Newiti" in the sense used by
whites, i.e., both the village on Hope Island and
the two closely linked divisions that dwelled
there at the end of the 19th century, the
T'lat'lasikwala and the Nakamgalisala.

4. In 1991 the word babaMwa was glossed
to me as "vicious man" rather than "warrior."

5. Hunt states that a number of British sail-
ors were killed during the gun battle at Bull
Harbour (CU-Hunt xiv:3942), but according to re-
ports of the time, none of the injuries suffered by
the sailors were fatal (Cough 1984:45).

6. Neville Lincoln is currently preparing a com-
prehensive analytical Kwak'wala dictionary.

7. A typical example of a sortal classifier
would be musgami migwat, "four harbor seals,"
where mu- is a quantifer stem meaning "four,"
-sgam is the classifier used for bulky objects, -i is
a demonstrative suffix, and migwat is the term
meaning "harbor seal."

8. Indirect evidence that Boas understood
the shape class system comes from Helen Codere,

JUDITH BERMAN

205

who noted that Boas' Kwak'wala was only criti-
cized by the Kwakwaka'wakw for being too slow,
while an assimilated Kwakwaka'wakw woman
was criticized because she could not correctly
use shape locatives (Codere 1966:xxiv, xxvii).

9. One of the drawings is presumably the
"plan of Fort Rupert as it appeared in 1 866" that
Boas refers to in the manuscript for the post-
humous KwakiutI Ethnography but that could not
be found for publication (Boas 1966:48).

10. A fifth division, the Mamalilekala, moved
with the others but soon returned to its original
location (Boas 1921 :973-7).

11. It is uncertain whether Hunt and his
mother stayed at Daasaxakw on Village and Cat
Islands or at Kadukguka on Tongass Island. Both
sites were occupied by Tongass people during
the 1860s, and Hunt mentions being at both lo-
cations (APS-KM v:5420; Hunt to Boas, 2 August
1920, APS-BPC; HBCA, Fort Simpson Journal, 24
February 1858; Olson 1967:94; Paul 1971:12).

12. Documents indicate that George Hunt
was employed by the company in Fort Rupert in
January 1864 (HBCA, Robert Hunt Biography; W.
Tolmie to P. Compton, 9 January 1864, HBCA,
B.226/b/23:304).

1 3. The relevant HBCA material is as follows:
Tolmie to W. Smith, 15 August 1868, B.226/b/
34:346; J. Bissett to J. Grahame, 1 2 October 1 870,
A.l 1/85:474; Grahame to R. Hunt 14 September
1871, B.226/b/44:807; Grahame to W. Armit, 3
October 1871, B.226/b/45:204, 206-7.

14. The number of slaves was between 16
and 19; slave status is not clear in several cases.

15. Hunt's father was hired to conduct an
official census of Fort Rupert and vicinity in 1 881
(HBCA, Robert Hunt Biography: 12; William Charles
to R. Hunt, 29 March 1881, B.226/b/23 fo.l32,
HBCA). Hunt may have aided his father in this
effort, and the experience may have influenced
the form of the two censuses he carried out for
Boas.

16. A second Kwakwaka'wakw collection
was made by Jacobsen's younger brother in 1 884
(Cole 1985:67), but Boas may not have used it.

17. Boas wrote that the Winter Ceremonial
occurred in 1895-96. His letters home from the
field (Rohner 1969), his subsequent correspon-
dence with Hunt and others, and his own list of

206

field expenses (APS-BPC, AMNH-HAR) show that
this date is erroneous.

1 8. The relatively unpracticed handwriting is
clearly similar to that of Hunt's letters that date
to the mid-1 890s. By 1900, he developed very
regular penmanship. The features of Hunt's earli-
est transcription practices include the following:
"Q" or "q" as any back labialized stop or fricative;
the combination "dg" as either the voiced affri-
cate dz or the voiceless glottalized affricate ts';
the character "L" as, interchangeably, the voiced,
voiceless, or glottalized lateral affricate or, with a
bar above it, the lateral fricative; and the frequent
use of a length diacritic above every vowels. In
Hunt's post-1 897 manuscripts, he has abandoned
these features except the use of "L" for all lateral
affricates. For example, for the word t'tagakw, "red-
dyed cedar bark [for the Winter Ceremonial]," Hunt
wrote Liigiiq in 1 895 but Laghkw by 1898 (Hunt
to Boas, 5 November 1 895, 25 May 1898). Boas
would have rendered this word as L!agEkw.

19. This set begins at page 41 but switches
several pages later to page 34 and runs from there
to page 56.

20. Hunt was aware of variation in and elabo-
ration of this developmental sequence among the
Kwakwaka'wakw but was most concerned with
the four Kwagul divisions of Fort Rupert.

21 . Hunt is describing a pole that was raised
to his maternal grandmother at Kadukguka on
Tongass Island and later removed to Pioneer
Square in Seattle. While Hunt may have been with
his uncles at the time of his grandmother's death
in 1 870, the pole would not have been raised un-
til some time afterward (Barbeau 1 950:651 -2; Paul
1971:14). It also seems unlikely, though not im-
possible, that his uncles would have carved their
own mother's memorial pole— a task properly car-
ried out by their moiety opposites.

22. After Hunt's death in 1933, Boas began
to work with William Beynon, a part-Tsimshian
man, much as he had with Hunt. From 1933 to
1941 Beynon generated thousands of pages of
Tsimshian manuscript for Boas, only some of which
have been edited and published (Beynon to Boas,
7 October 1935 et seq.. Boas to Beynon 14 April
1 941 ; Tsimshian Chiefs 1 992; see also Anderson
and Halpin 2000). The Beynon manuscripts are cur-
rently in the Columbia University Archives.

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Appendix A

Location of Major Hunt/Boas Manuscript Collections
The American Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadel-
phia is the major repository of Boas' papers. The hold-
ings include a number of Hunt manuscripts and related
materials, in English and Kwak'wala. There are two
major collections of Boas papers at the APS: Boas Pro-
fessional Correspondence (BPC) and the Boas Linguis-
tic Collection. Each has a finding aid that is close to
comprehensive. The two volumes of the Cuide to the
Microfilm Collection of the Professional Papers of Franz
Boas (1 972) list all of Boas' correspondents alphabeti-
cally and then by date. Nearly all the other Boas and
Hunt manuscripts at the APS are referenced in John
Freeman, y4 Cuide to (Manuscripts Relating to the Ameri-
can Indian in the Library of the American Philosophical
Society (APS, 1 966). The Freeman catalogue numbers,
given below, are a useful reference tool only; they are
not the APS manuscript accession numbers.

Unfortunately, the contents of the massive Hunt
manuscript collections referenced in the APS Freeman
Cuide are not indexed. The "List of KwakiutI Manu-
scripts by George Hunt in Columbia University Library"
(APS-LKM), written by Boas some 50 years ago, is a
partial catalogue of Hunt manuscripts, published and
unpublished, that are today split between the Colum-
bia University Libraries, the APS, and perhaps other
places as yet unknown. It seems likely that most of
the still unlocated manuscripts mentioned in Boas' list
will eventually be found at the APS.

The Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Columbia
University holds 1 4 volumes of Hunt manuscripts (des-
ignated here as CU-Hunt). Volumes i-xiii of CU-Hunt
consist almost exclusively of the originals of the pub-
lished Hunt texts; the final volume (xiv) contains the
original Hunt manuscripts for a text volume that is held
at the APS, "KwakiutI Ethnographic Texts and Transla-
tion," which never went to press (APS-KTT).

Abbreviations used in the text
For internal consistency and ease of referencing, the
following abbreviations have been devised for this
paper; they may bear little resemblance to abbrevia-
tions used within the holding institutions.

American Philosophical Society (APS)

APS-BPC Franz Boas Professional Correspondence

APS-KEM Franz Boas [and George Hunt], KwakiutI Eth-
nographic Materials [1 900-3 1 ]. 3 vols. Boas Linguis-
tic Collection [Freeman 1927]

APS-KM Franz Boas [and George Hunt], :Kwakiutl
Materials [1896-1933]. 6 vols. Boas Linguistic Col-
lection [Freeman 1941]

APS-KTT KwakiutI Ethnographic Texts, and Transla-
tion. 2 vols. [pt. I, Texts; pt. II, Translations]. Boas
Linguistic Collection [Freeman 1938]

APS-KWD KwakiutI Dictionary. Edited by Helene Boas
Yampolsky. Boas Linguistic Collection [Freeman
1948]

APS-LKM List of KwakiutI Manuscripts by George Hunt
in Columbia University Library. Boas Linguistic Col-
lection [Freeman 1923]

APS-RMC Franz Boas, Remarks on Masks and Ceremo-
nial Objects of the KwakiutI [Amplification and cor-
rection of specimens in Boas 1 897, with information
on use]. Boas Linguistic Collection [Freeman 1 926]

APS-SHN Edward Sapir and George Hunt, Nootka Tales.
4 vols, [two, the original Hunt ms.; two, a revised
typescript] [Freeman 2405]

Anthropology Archives, American Museum of

Natural History (AMNH)

AMNH-HAR George Hunt Accession Records

AMNH-HCF George Hunt Correspondence File

Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia

University Libraries (CU)

CU-Hunt George Hunt, Manuscript in the Language of
the KwakiutI Indians of Vancouver Island. Preface by
Franz Boas, reviser. 1 4 vols.

Hudson's Bay Company Archives (HBCA),

Provincial Archives of Manitoba

Fort Simpson Journal 1855-59

Robert Hunt Biography

Other Manuscript Sources

FRP Register of Fort Rupert Land Purchase, British Co-
lumbia Archives, Victoria

Hunt Memorandum Book, Private Collection

JUDITH BERMAN

207

Appendix B

Table of Contents for the unpublished "KwakiutI Texts" volume
[from the copy at the American Philosophical Society, APS-KTT]

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Conversations 1

Conversation between Husband and Wife 1

Conversation between Husband and Wife 3

Convez>8at ion between Husband and Wife 4

Conversation between Husband and Wife 5

Conversation between O'mx'eid and Ma Mother 6

Conversation between Me'led and her Mother 6

Quarrel of Husband and Wife 7

Husband and Wife 3

Conversation of Mother and Daughter.... 9

Conversation of Mother and Daughter.. 9

Conversation between Father and Son 10

Advice Given to Sea Hvinter 11

Conversation of Father and Daughter 11

Conversation between Two Brothers 12

A Young Man Goes Htintlng... 13

A YoTing Girl Returas to Fort Rupert after Fourteen

Years Absence 13

Conversation of Two Men 15

Conversation of Two Young Men 16

Conversation of Two Hunters 16

Conversation of Two Old Men... 17

Conversation of Two Friends 18

A Wreck 19

Conversation of Two Young Men 20

Conversation of Two Friends 21

Conversation of Two Men 22

Instruction Given by a Warrior 23

Conversation of Two Warriors 24

A Feast 24

Quarrel between a Chief and a Proud Man 25

Conversation between Two Young Women 27

Clam Digging 28

Conversation of 'iVo Women 28

Conversation of Women 29

A Quarrel 33

Borrowing a Canoe 35

Conversation of Two Men 35

Conversation of Two Men.. 36

208

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Father and Son 36

Conversation about O'mx'eid 37

The Name for White People 38

A Letter 38

A Letter 39

Biographical 40

Biographical Notes of a ena'klwax'daexu Woman 40

Food-Gathering and Sioknesa 42

Illegitimate Children 43

Hunting and Sap-Making. 45

Hunting... 46

Drying Salmon... 48

A Supernatural Experience 49

A Supernatural Experience, Told by g'l'qalas 51

Fuz^Seal Hunting 53

Speeches...... 54

Anno\mceioMat of Naming of a Child Born in Another Village 54

g'aeyAia Engageitient.«^..«i..... 55

Marriage . • • . . . • • • w * « • • , 60

Speech of Host in a Small Feast 65

Host's Speech at Beginning of Grease Feast *f •...» • 65

Speech for House Dishes 66

Speech by Ncg 'a'dze 68

Speech of a g'l'g'eljjam Chief at a Great Potlatch 70

Awaxelag *elia*. • 70

Speech of Welcome (I^n Cranmer}« 72

Speech Delivered at a Sattill Feast 73

Speech of Chief in d^uarrel «rlth Bi^als* 74

Speech of a Porpoise fiuBter 77

SpaechAS Made during Winter Ceremonial 78

Assembly 78

A Feast during the Winter Ceremonial 79

Awaxclag 'clis 80

Feast of Sparrow Society 81

laxslt 84

Historical 88

The Missionaries at Port Rupert and in Newetbee 88

War with the Southern Tribes 99

War between Oa'yoklwadEX and Mfi'tsladEX 103

The Murder of Qiwe 'qlweqiwe Ill

The Splitting up of the Kwa'g'ui 113

JUDITH BERMAN 2 0 9

Social Organization 114

The Chief and the enecme'ina 114

Qla'qlasto 121

The Eagles 128

Woman as Manager of Property 128

Women Who Have Men's Seats 1.50

nS'gadesa aewaiLela 131

dzo'noqlwa 131

Descent and Frivileges 136

Descent 136

Endogamy 136

The Social Position of lounger Children 136

A Genealogy 139

Introduction of the LEwelaxa 145

ilwa'de 147

Ya'xLcn 149

Marriage 150

A Marriage among the Koskimo..... 150

A Marriage among the Kwaklutl 154

Qotex'a 170

Giving Advice to the Bride 177

Instructions Given to Bride and Groom 189

Xwe'sa 192

Irregular JViarriages 193

Illegitimate Children 199

Illegitiinate Children 199

Illegitimate Children 200

Treatment of a Deformed Child 203

Treatment of Infants. 206

Education 210

Education of a Girl 210

Suicide 216

Cenotaph 228

Judgment of Character , 234

Qualities of a Good Man 234

A Well-behaved Girl 234

A Bad Chief 235

Bad Teachings 241

Pipe s and Smoking 243

Feasts 245

qialqtt ( Travestites ) 246

2 1 0

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Medicine 247

Castorlum 247

Hemlock Roots 247

Black Bear Gall Used as Liver and Kidney Medicine 247

Customs Relating to Fishing, Himting and Food-Gathering 248

Olachen Fishing 248

Taboos of First Pish 249

First Fruits and First Olachen 250

Cormorants 252

Eagle Hunting 253

Bewitching an Eagle 253

Porcupine Hunter (Kwa'g'ui) 254

The same ( ena'klwax *da ex« ) 254

Hunting Customs « • 254

Deer 254

Shamanism 255

ha'daho 257

Witchcraft 257

e'qa 257

LEWE'laxa 260

Industries 270

Harpoon Line 270

Fishing Dentalia 270

Landotter Trap 275

Beaver Trap 277

Stretching a Beaver Skin 278

Deerskin , 279

Fishing, Hunting, Food -Gathering and Preparation of Jt-'ood..,. 281

Olachen 281

Dog -Salmon 282

Horse -Clams 285

Clams 288

Sea Hunting 289

JUDITH BERMAN

2 1 1

References

Anderson, Margaret, and Marjorie Halpin,
eds.

2000 Potlatch at Citsegukia: William Beynon's 1945

Field Notebooks. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe

1 887 History of British Columbia, 1 792- 1 887. San Fran-
cisco: History Company.
Barbeau, Marius

1950 Totem Poles. 2 vols. Bulletin 1 19. National Mu-
seum of Canada, Ottawa.
Berman, Judith

1990 Notes on Shape Classification in Kwak'wala. In
Working Papers for the 25th International Conference
on Salish and Neighboring Languages. Pp. 37-60.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

1 991 The Seals' Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation of
Boas' Kwak'wala Texts. Ph.D. diss., University of Penn-
sylvania, Dept. of Anthropology, Philadelphia.

1 994 George Hunt and the Kwak'wala Texts. Anthro-
pological Linguistics 36(4):482-514.

1996 'The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-
self: Boas, George Hunt and the Methods of Eth-
nography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Es-
says on Boasian Ethnography and the German An-
thropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, ed. Pp.
215-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison: Uni-
versity of Wisconsin Press.

2000 Red Salmon and Red Cedar Bark: Another Look
at the Kwakwaka'wakw Winter Ceremonial. BC
Studies 125/126:53-98.

n.d. Raven and Sunbeam, Pencil and Paper: George
Hunt of Fort Rupert, B.C. In American Indians as An-
thropologists. Douglas Parks, ed. Norman: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Press.

Boas, Franz

1897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-
ies of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Ob-
servations and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt.
Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Wash-
ington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1 901 The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. Bul-
letin of the American Museum of Natural History 15(1).

1 907 Second Report on the Eskimo of Baffin Land
and Hudson Bay. Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History] 5(2).

1909 The KwakiutI of Vancouver Island. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 301-522.
Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory, 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

1910 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-
tions to Anthropology, 2. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.

1 921 Ethnology of the KwakiutI. Bureau of American
Ethnology Annual Report, 35, pts. 1 -2. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.
1 925 Contributions to the Ethnology of the KwakiutI.

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,

3. New York: Columbia University Press.
1 930 Religion of the KwakiutI. Columbia University

Contributions to Anthropology, 10. Pts. 1-2. New

York: Columbia University Press.

1934 Geographical Names of the KwakiutI Indians.
Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,
20. New York: Columbia University Press.

1935 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-
tions to Anthropology, 26. Pt. 1 : Texts. New York:
Columbia University Press.

1 940a Introduction to International Journal of Ameri-
can Linguistics. In Franz Boas, Race, Language and
Cu/tw re, pp. 1 99-225. New York: Free Press. Origi-
nally published 191 7.

1940b The Social Organization of the KwakiutI. In
Franz Boas, Race, Language and Culture, pp. 356-
69. New York: Free Press. Originally published 1 920.

1943 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-
tions to Anthropology, 26. Pt. 2: Translations. New
York: Columbia University Press.

1 947 KwakiutI Grammar, with a Glossary of the Suf-
fixes. New York: AMS Press.

1966 KwakiutI Ethnography. Helen Codere, ed. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.

Boas, Franz, and George Hunt

1 905 KwakiutI Texts. The Jesup North Pacific Expedi-
tion, vol. 3. Memoirs of the American Museum of
Natural History, 5. Leiden: E.J .Brill; New York: G. E.
Stechert.

1 906 KwakiutI Texts (Second Series). The Jesup North
Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 0, pt. 1 , pp. 1 -269. Memoirs
of the American Museum of Natural History, 1 4.
Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Codere, Helen

1 966 Introduction. In Franz Boas, KwakiutI Ethnogra-
phy. Helen Codere, ed. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.

Cole, Douglas

1 985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest
Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.

Curtis, Edward S.

1 91 5 The KwakiutI. The North American Indian, vol.

1 0. Norwood, CN.
Fisher, Robin

1 977 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations

in British Columbia.yancouver. UBC Press.
Ford, Clellan

1 941 Smoke from Their Fires: The Life of a KwakiutI

Chief New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gibson, James

1 992 Otter Skins, Boston Ships and China Goods: The
Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coast, 1 785-

2 1 2

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

1841. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Gifford, Edward W.

1 926 Clear Lake Porno Society. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Anthro-
pology, 1 8(2). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.

Goldman, Irving

1975 The Mouth of Heaven: An Introduction to

KwakiutI Religious Thought. New York: Wiley.
Gough, Barry

1 984 Gunboat Frontier: British Maritime Authority and
Northwest Coast Indians, 7846-90. Vancouver: UBC
Press.

Holm, Bill, and George Irving Quimby

1 980 Edward S. Curtis in the Land of the War Canoes:
A Pioneer Cinematographer in the Pacific Northwest.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Jacknis, Ira

1 991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. In
Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.
Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Pp.1 77-224. Seattle: University
of Washington Press; New York: American Museum
of Natural History.

1 992 George Hunt, KwakiutI Photographer. In Anthro-
pology and Photography 1860-1920. Elizabeth
Edwards, ed. Pp. 143-51. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press in association with the Royal
Anthropological Institute.

Johnson, Patricia

1972 Fort Rupert. 7^76 6efli/er(spring):4-l 5.
Lincoln, Neville, and John Rath

1980 North Wakashan Comparative Root List. Na-
tional Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Eth-
nology Service Paper, 68.

Lyons, John

1 977 Semantics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.

Marcus, Stacy

1 991 Settee. In Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI
Potlatch. Aldona Jonaitis, ed. P. 214. Seattle: Univer-
sity of Washington Press.

Olson, Ronald

1 967 Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit in
Alaska. Anthropological Records, 26. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Paul, William L.

1 971 The Real Story of the Lincoln Po\e. Alaska Journal

1(3):2-16.
Ray, Verne

1 980 Boas and the Neglect of Commoners. In Indians
of the North Pacific Coast. Tom McFeat, ed. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.

Rohner, Ronald, ed.

1 969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-
ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coast
from 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Sapir, Edward, and Morris Swadesh

1 939 Nootka Texts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of

America.
Travis, Ralph

1 946 Reminiscences of Fort Rupert. The Beaver (De-

cember):32-4.
Tsimshian Chiefs

1992 Suwilaay'msga Na Ca'niiyatgm: Teachings of
Our Grandfathers. 7 vols. Vancouver: British Colum-
bia Ministry of Education.

Walens, Stanley

1 981 Feasting with Cannibals: An Essay on KwakiutI
Cosmology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Woldt, Adrian

1 977 Alaskan Voyage 1881-1 883: An Expedition to
the Northwest Coast of America. Erna Gunther, trans.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

JUDITH BERMAN

2 1 3

61/ Jesup Expedition Collections displayed at the American Museum of Natural History, 1905 (AMNH 386)

a rt

THE RESOURCES: CRITICAL VIEWS IN THE POST-JESUP ERA

Tl^e "Russian ^astian" and ^oas

VVl^y ^hternberg's " j he ^ociai O^'ga'^i'^ation of the (jiltjalc" {Njever
/Appeared /\mong the Jesup j^xpedition f ubiications

SERGEI KAN

This paper, like the manuscript it deals with, has a
rather complicated history. It was originally written for
a session devoted to the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-
tion ONPE) at the 1 993 meeting of the American An-
thropological Association (see Fitzhugh and Krupnik,
this volume; Kan 1 993).' The aim of that original paper
was to establish why Shternberg's 'The Social Organi-
zation of the Gilyak," which had been commissioned
by Boas in 1 904 for the JNPE series, never saw the light
of day. At that time, I had done but a limited amount
of research on Shternberg's biography and scholarly
activities, using his own and others' published works
as well as his correspondence with Boas, which is pre-
served in the archives of the American Philosophical
Society (APS) and the Department of Anthropology,
American Museum of Natural History (AMNH-DA). I
had also utilized both the Russian- and English-language
versions of his Gilyak manuscript located at the AMNH.

Although my paper did provide a fairly accurate
answer to the question it asked, it did not utilize the
large collection of Shternberg materials at the Archive
of the Russian Academy of Sciences (AAN), St. Peters-
burg Branch, and consequently did not go far enough
in exploring the various intellectual, political, and per-
sonal obstacles that prevented Shternberg from com-
pleting the monograph.^ But the paper nevertheless
served an important purpose: at my suggestion, the
AMNH decided to finally publish this manuscript, which
had been lingering in its archive for over half a cen-
tury. Bruce Grant, who has done archival research on

and ethnographic fieldwork among the Gilyak [Nivkh]
and has published his own book (Grant 1 995) on their
cultural and sociopolitical history under Soviet rule,
edited the AMNH manuscript and wrote the foreword.
In preparing Shternberg's Gilyak study for publication.
Grant examined many of the same source materials as I
had, as well as my 1993 manuscript (Grant 1999:xliv)
and, more important, a number of key documents from
the Shternberg archive. The result of Grant's work-
both his substantial foreword and his notes— is a major
tour de force that answers many of the questions raised
a few years earlier (Shternberg 1 999).

My own research on Shternberg's intellectual
biography, which has been going on since 1998, has
involved a thorough examination of most of the docu-
ments from the Shternberg archive, as well as a careful
review of his entire corpus of publications.^ In the course
of this work, I have discovered some important addi-
tional information on the history of the Gilyak manu-
script. I have also come to some conclusions about its
content that do not fully agree with or that at least
supplement those of Grant (1999). Consequently the
focus of the present piece is rather different from that
of its 1 993 predecessor.

While Grant's critical evaluation of the contents of
the Gilyak manuscript concentrates mainly on
Shternberg's deeply flawed evolutionist reconstruc-
tion of Gilyak social organization, I pay more attention
to the monograph's last three chapters, which discuss,
in a synchronic perspective, the functioning and the

2 1 7

religious symbolism of the clan— the key unit of the
Cilyak sociopolitical and ideational universe. I argue
that in this part of his work, in which Shternberg elo-
quently demonstrates the interrelationship between
the Gilyak social structure and the Cilyak religious
worldview, he sounds more like Durkheim and Mauss
than like Morgan and Tylor. My analysis also shows
that his fascination with and very positive evaluation
of the role of the clan in Cilyak culture and society had
much to do with his own lifelong commitment to Rus-
sian populism (narodnichestvo), a unique blend of west-
ern socialist and home-grown ideas. In fact, I believe
that this contradiction between Shternberg's progres-
sivist 1 9th-century evolutionism and his somewhat ro-
mantic admiration for the precapitalist social organi-
zation and social life of Siberia's indigenous peoples
was central to his entire scholarly worldview and set
him somewhat apart from the classical evolutionists.

Boas' correspondence, not only with Shternberg
himself but with Shternberg's closest Russian colleagues
and friends, Bogoras and Jochelson, sets the saga of
the manuscript's preparation and its absence from the
Jesup publication series in the context of the larger
story of Boas' complex, four-decade-long relationship
with his three Russian colleagues. Such contextual-
ization of the Boas-Shternberg relationship gives us a
much better understanding of Boas' truly heroic efforts
to foster a Russian "ethno-troika" and to encourage its
greater concentration on scholarly work than on left-
wing political activities and journalism (and in
Shternberg's case, on Jewish politics, as well).''

Boas first became acquainted with these scholars
on the eve of the Russian Revolution of 1 904-05, when
he recruited them to take part in the JNPE project. His
effort to maintain close contact with them throughout
the turbulent 1 91 Os, World War I, the February and Oc-
tober Revolutions of 1917, the devastation of Russia
in the early 1 920s, and the rise of Stalinist totalitarian-
ism in the late 1920s and early 1930s indicates the
importance of this relationship for him, both as a scholar
and as a human being. Similarly, the relationship was

2 18

very important to the three Russian scholars, both pro-
fessionally and personally. Boas, after all, had always
been one of their most important western professional
contacts, the main publisher of their scholarly works
outside Russia, a source of badly needed additional
income, and a close friend. Although the space limita-
tions of this paper do not allow me to explore Boas'
relationship with Bogoras and Jochelson in as much
detail as that between him and Shternberg, I believe
that this topic is crucial for our understanding of the
entire Jesup project and requires a great deal of further
investigation (see Krupnik 1 998). At this point, how-
ever, I simply offer an examination of the relationship
between Boas and Shternberg, whom Boas once re-
ferred to as the "Russian Bastian" (Boas 1934:xli), as
well as a preliminary review of Shternberg's scholarly
contributions and public life (see Kan 1 993, 1 999, 2000).
The purpose of this paper is also to emphasize that, in
many ways, Shternberg was very much a part of the
Boasian JNPE project, although the long delay in pub-
lishing his contribution has obscured this fact.

Shternberg as a Jewish Populist

Since Shternberg's biography has been recently out-
lined (Grant 1 999), I offer only a brief overview of his
political and scholarly activities, focusing in particular
on those aspects that either are directly related to his
work on the Gilyak manuscript or are not discussed in
detail by Grant.^ Lev Shternberg was part of a cohort of
Russian-Jewish revolutionary populists (narodnikijwho
rose against the tsarist government in the late 1 870s-
mid-1 880s and were sentenced to exile in Siberia. His
future friends and colleagues, Jochelson and Bogoras,
shared the same ethnic, social, and political background
and suffered the same punishment.

Born in 1861 in Zhitomir, a provincial Ukrainian
town. Lev (Khaim) lakovlevich Shternberg attended
the local Jewish religious school, where he acquired
a deep knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and, in the
words of his childhood friend, Moisei Krol' (1 929:2 1 5),
was inspired to begin asking "important questions of

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

a religious, juridical, and moral nature." Although later
in life Shternberg moved away from the traditional
Judaism of his childhood and became a member of the
urban intelligentsia, he did retain a deep affection for
his people and a strong interest in their culture and
historical experience. Like many other Jewish populists
of his era, he was particularly drawn to the ideology of
the biblical prophets, with their emphasis on compas-
sion and social Justice (see, for example, Shternberg
1924; Haberer 1995). Unlike Bogoras and Jochelson,
he eventually became very active in Jewish political
and cultural activities, journalism, and ethnographic
research.

Shternberg's life changed dramatically at the age of
1 0, when his father sent him to a Russian high school.
There, he entered a new world of secular culture. He
devoured the classical novels by Russian and western
European authors and then the works of Darwin and
other materialist natural scientists and philosophers,
which were extremely popular with young Russian in-
tellectuals in the 1 860s and 1 870s (Vucinich 1 988). He
also began studying the works of the Russian "revolu-
tionary democrats" of the previous generation who at-
tacked Russia's conservative political regime and back-
ward socioeconomic system.

Soon, a biblical commandment "to love thy neigh-
bor" became an inspiration for him to fight for social
justice (Krol' 1929:218). In 1876-77 populist ideas
spread quickly from the urban centers to the provincial
towns. Young people, many of them members of the
lower middle class and the intelligentsia, organized a
movement of "going to the people," that is, to the Rus-
sian peasants, whom the narodniki hoped to radicalize
through education and political propaganda. Although
Shternberg was too young to join this movement, he
helped the radicals in various ways (Hardy 1 987).

It is not surprising that in 1 881 , on graduating from
high school, Shternberg decided to enroll in St. Pe-
tersburg University, one of the most intellectually
and politically progressive institutions of higher learn-
ing in Russia and a major center of populist activities.

Having chosen the natural sciences division, he at-
tended lectures by the leading scientists of the day,
who introduced him to the latest positivist, evolution-
ist, and materialist theories. Along with Krol' and
Bogoras, Shternberg joined the student branch of the
People's Will, the leading underground populist party
(which by this time was in decline), and in 1 882 he
played an active role in organizing a large student dem-
onstration against increased restrictions on the stu-
dents' academic freedom (Naimark 1 983). As a result,
all three were expelled from the university and ban-
ished from the capital (Krol' 1944:22-46).

Shternberg then became a student in the law divi-
sion of Novorossiysk University in Odessa, where for
four years he studied subjects that were closely related
to his future work in comparative ethnology: history,
philosophy, sociology, and primitive law. In Odessa he
became a leading member of the "Southern Group" of
the People's Will. In 1886, during his graduation ex-
aminations, Shternberg was arrested, along with other
activists of the Southern Croup, including Bogoras. The
People's Will was finished (Naimark 1983; Haberer
1995:242-51). After spending three years in solitary
confinement in an Odessa prison, where he studied
several foreign languages as well as history, political
science, and other subjects (AAN, 282/1/120),
Shternberg was exiled to Sakhalin Island, Russia's infa-
mous penal colony (Grant 1 995, 1 999).

Like other populists, Shternberg had a strong faith
in the power of science (understood in positivist and
materialist terms) and in sociopolitical and moral
progress. He subscribed to the theory of social evolu-
tion and saw the evolution of ideas as the main cause
of social progress— like most other late 19th century
evolutionists, but unlike Marx, whom the narodniki did
study and respect a great deal (Malinin 1 991 ; see also
Stocking 1 987). He shared the populists' strong inter-
est in and romanticization of the Russian peasant com-
mune, seen as the foundation of a more egalitarian,
nonexploitative, and just society of the future that was
to be different from the capitalist West. In the 1870s

SERGEI KAN

219

through the 1890s, interest in rural social institutions
and the spiritual culture of the peasants— and, by ex-
tension, the "precapitalist" Siberian natives {inorodts\d—
stimulated a great deal of sociological, folkloristic, and
ethnographic research, carried out mainly by the ex-
iled populists (Tokarev 1 966; Slezkine 1 994:1 1 3-29).

Shternberg as Ethnographer/Social Theorist

After arriving on Sakhalin in May 1 889, Shternberg con-
tinued reading voraciously and studying European lan-
guages, philosophy, and history.'' He soon came across
the island's main indigenous people, the Cilyak [Nivkh],
who occasionally visited Aleksandrovsk, the main Rus-
sian community on Sakhalin, where he had initially
settled.^ In the spring of 1 890 Shternberg was punished
for defending a fellow exile from administrative abuse
and was sent from Aleksandrovsk to Vyakhtu, a remote
military outpost 1 00 kilometers to the north. There he
was able to get a much closer look at the natives who
lived nearby and often came to Viakhtu to trade.

While some exiled revolutionaries might have been
pushed toward ethnographic research by the sheer bore-
dom of their life (see Vahktin, this volume), this seems
not to have been the case with Shternberg. As he
wrote two decades later, "My previous scholarly stud-
ies, predominantly in the domain of the humanities and
the social sciences, naturally pushed me . . . towards
the study of the Cilyak social and spiritual culture. My
primary interests included the family structure, the clan,
and religion, followed by poetry [folklore] and language.
At that time I was particularly interested in the first two
and with them I began" (Shternberg 1 908:viii).

Shternberg's research methods included some
participation in the Natives' daily activities, such as
hunting and trapping (see AAN, 282/1/2, p. 10), as
well as working with an informant, an influential and
wealthy man who often visited the post and traded
information on the Cilyak religion and other subjects
for bread, sugar, and tobacco (AAN, 282/1/2, p. 10;
Shternberg 1999:5). Even though many of the Cilyak
visitors to the post spoke some Russian, Shternberg

soon realized that without learning the Cilyak language
and using it to gather ethnographic data, any attempt
to understand the Natives' "true [podlinnyi] life," and
especially its "psychological aspects," would fail
(Shternberg 1908:viii-ix).8

In February 1891 the island's Russian administra-
tion found out about Shternberg's studies, and he was
asked to undertake a census of the Cilyak population
in the northwestern part of the island. Eventually, he
was allowed to visit the rest of Sakhalin and the nearby
lower Amur River region, where he continued his cen-
sus work as well as his ethnographic observations of
the Cilyak, Oroki [Uilta], Ainu, Orochi, and Col'dy
[Nanay]. Except for his first ethnographic expedition,
undertaken in the winter of 1 891 , Shternberg normally
surveyed the Native settlements in the summer and
spent the winters analyzing his data, as well as collect-
ing additional information from visiting Natives and a
few young Cilyak who resided with him for substantial
periods of time. ^

The fact that a significant part of Shternberg's
ethnographic research was conducted in the context
of rather brief visits to Native settlements for the pur-
pose of census taking had a definite effect on the kind
of data he was able to collect. '° Although, like most
other ethnographers of his time, he tried to gather
information on every aspect of Native life and even
bought objects of material culture and undertook some
archeological excavations, much of his data had to do
with demography, kinship terminology, and the
Natives' statements about their laws, customs, and
beliefs, ratherthan his own observations of theirevery-
day and ceremonial life.

To Shternberg's credit, he was a tireless ethnogra-
pher who used every opportunity to question his Cilyak
hosts and guides about their culture. He even devel-
oped a clever method of encouraging the Cilyak to
share information with him: he would often show them
an illustrated book depicting the various peoples of
the Russian Empire and ask them to compare those
peoples' "exotic" customs with their own (Shternberg's

220

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

1 891 diary, AAN, 282/1 /3, p. 82; Shternberg to Krol",
19 May 1891, AAN, 282/2/363, p. 30). This cast his
relationship with them in a more reciprocal light. He
also used every opportunity to get at the deeper lay-
ers of the Gilyak religious worldview and philosophy.
For example, during one of his journeys through north-
ern Sakhalin, Shternberg climbed a mountain that the
Gilyak considered very sacred. His Native guides were
terrified and were convinced that he would not come
back alive. When he did, they volunteered a great deal
of valuable information on the mythology and religious
beliefs surrounding the sacred site (Shternberg
1908:30).

Shternberg's study of the Gilyak language and his
method of recording the various genres of Gilyak folk-
lore were on a par with the work of most other Russian
and foreign ethnographers who had not had any previ-
ous training in linguistics." At the same time, neither
his published works nor his field notes contain many
really detailed descriptions of Gilyak rituals, despite
his interest in "primitive" religion.

As his diaries and journals indicate, Shternberg stayed
in a Gilyak village only long enough— usually only for
a few days— to conduct an adequate census and record
kinship terms, along with some other data, but not long
enough to make any systematic, detailed observations
of day-to-day activities, social interactions, or rituals. In
fact, although he was happy about the research oppor-
tunities census taking provided, he complained on oc-
casion that his Native hosts would sometimes become
bored with the census-related questions and would give
him only perfunctory answers. Hence, while he eventu-
ally became a strong advocate of what he called "the
[long-term] stationary method" of field research (Bogoras
1 928; Ratner-Shternberg 1 935), his own ethnographies
lack the kind of rich and detailed data, derived from
first-hand observation, one finds in Malinowski's writ-
ing on the Trobriand Islanders or in Bogoras' on the
Chukchi (Bogoras 1 904-09).

From the very beginning, Shternberg's ethnographic
research had a definite focus on the Gilyak system of

kinship and marriage, which also accounts for a certain
one-sidedness of his data. His interest in these topics
probably resulted from his previous reading in primi-
tive law and social organization, as well as his populist
fascination with the workings of a rather egalitarian so-
cial order in which exploitation of the poor by the
wealthy was absent. As Shternberg wrote to Krol' on
May 19, 1891, just a few months after his first trip
through northern and northwestern Sakhalin, the life
of the Gilyak was "wholesome and full [tsel'naia i
polnaia], the individual and the group are linked to-
gether by natural bonds . . ." (AAN, 282/2/363, p. 34).
The same letter indicates that by this time he had al-
ready read Engels' book Der Ursprung der Familie (The
origin of the family) and that through Engels he had
become familiar with Morgan's reconstruction of the
evolution of marriage and the family.'^

Shternberg's letters and diary entries show that soon
after initiating his research on the Gilyak he became
firmly convinced that he had discovered evidence of
group marriage among them. In the same letter to Krol',
he wrote:

My main accomplishment is the study of
their social organization and marriage
system. I discovered among them a system
of kinship nomenclature and a system of
family and clan law [semeino-rodovoe pravo]
which are identical to those which exist
among the Iroquois ano in the case of the
famous Punulua. In other words, I found the
remnants of that form of marriage upon
which Morgan had built his theory and which
serves as the starting point of the brochure
Der Ursprung der Familie. ... At first I was
afraid to believe my discovery. However,
during the census-taking, when I tried not to
miss a single family or a single dwelling, I
asked detailed questions about the terms of
address used by the various family and clan
members and about their sexual rights and
finally became convinced that my discovery
had been correct. Despite the fact that quite
a few descriptions of the Gilyak exist, none
has addressed this issue, at least in the
works known to me. I plan to publish a
report about those aspects of the Gilyak
social life, which I have studied, and hope
that it would [be] of interest not only to the
specialists. (AAN, 282/2/363, pp. 36-9)

SERGEI KAN

As Shternberg's first ethnographic report on the
Gilyak, written in 1 891 and published two years later in
one of Russia's two major ethnological journals, indi-
cates, he was aware of the fact that by the 1 890s the
Gilyak had become basically monogamous and that
the "sexual/marital rights" he had "discovered" among
them were no longer exercised all the time. In fact,
their occasional exercise could cause displeasure and
even violent protest from the woman's husband. How-
ever, in Shternberg's words, "from the legal point of
view, so to speak, they [these rights] still exist and their
exercise is not considered adultery, is not penalized,
and is often carried out with the permission of the man's
brothers and his wife's sisters' husbands" (Shternberg
1893:7, 15). As Grant (1 999:xl-xlii) points out, what
Shternberg found among the Gilyak was not a survival
of group marriage but "a loose kind of monogamy"
characterized by "discreet but permissible affairs" be-
tween certain categories of relatives, especially if one
of the participants in the affair was a visiting guest.
Shternberg's firm adherence to Morganian evolution-
ism—and, I believe, a certain feeling of "eureka"— pre-
vented him from ever questioning his "discovery."

This fascination with Gilyak social organization is
clearly reflected in Shternberg's first ethnographic pub-
lication, two-thirds of which is devoted to discussion
of the family, the clan, kinship and marriage, and indig-
enous law. While this essay contained a fairly detailed
account of the Gilyak system of kinship and marriage,
as well as an interesting and laudatory description of
the Gilyak agnatic clan, including a discussion of the
clan's symbolism (see below), his comments on Native
religion are fairly brief and are cast in evolutionist terms
(Shternberg 1 893:22). Another example of his lack of
understanding of the depth and complexity of the Gilyak
religion is his inadequate treatment of the bear festival
as a purely social institution that, in his view, func-
tioned simply to strengthen intraclan bonds and had
no religious significance (Shternberg 1 893:9). This view
of the most important Gilyak ceremony was eventually
challenged by some of Shternberg's own published

data and, especially, by the work of later ethnogra-
phers (e.g., Kreinovich 1973). Shternberg also argued
that despite several centuries of Gilyak interaction with
and subordination to the Manchurians, the Chinese,
the Japanese, and, most recently, the Russians, their
culture had remained largely intact and could thus be
used for a comparative study of primitive social orga-
nization and religion.'^

Despite its obvious limitations, Shternberg's 1 893
essay on the Gilyak generated considerable interest
among Russian ethnographers, both because of its de-
scription of a relatively "unknown and exotic" culture
and on account of its "discovery" of an interesting form
of "primitive marriage." Moreover, his "discovery," sum-
marized briefly in a Russian newspaper, was noted by
Engels himself, who praised it in an article in Die Neue
Zeit entitled "A Newly Discovered Case of Group Mar-
riage" (see Engels 1933 [1892-93]). For Engels,
Shternberg's "discovery" represented a powerful proof
of the validity of Morgan's evolutionary scheme and
his own arguments in The Origin of the Family 972
[1884]; see Grant 1995:55-8; 1999:xli). This recogni-
tion by the scholarly community, including one of the
leaders of the world socialist movement, was obviously
very important for Shternberg, who still occasionally
expressed doubts about his research and especially
about his lack of training in ethnology and linguistics
(see his letters to Krol', AAN, 282/2/363).

Having now become even more convinced of the
validity of his evolutionist theorizing, Shternberg went
on to "discover" another example of Morgan's classifi-
catory system of kinship relationship and group mar-
riage, this time among the Orochi of the Tatar Strait, a
Tungus-speaking group of sedentary hunters and fish-
ers living on the Pacific Coast across from Sakhalin
Island. The results of his Orochi research appeared in
an 1 896 essay published in several installments in a
local newspaper (Shternberg 1 896). In it, Shternberg
spoke with the greater authority of an ethnographer
who had already made an important discovery among
a neighboring people, as well as a comparativist who

222

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

had read a great deal of theoretical literature on the
evolution of marriage and social organization.'"

Shternberg's Career in the Early 1 900s
In May 1 897 Shternberg's exile ended, and he returned
to his hometown. However, without a university di-
ploma it was difficult for him to find a satisfying and
adequately paying job. While doing some writing for a
local newspaper, he also busied himself with organiz-
ing his Cilyak data and preparing it for publication. His
friends and fellow populists, Krol', Bogoras, and
Jochelson, who had finished their exile earlier, had al-
ready begun publicizing their ethnographic and lin-
guistics data among several prominent members of the
Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) in St. Petersburg
and were looking for money to publish them. They
tried to help him follow their path (see Jochelson's
letters to Radloff, 24 February, 1 7 November 1 898,
AAN, 1 77/2/1 20, pp. 1 -4).

Of the three, it was Krol' who spoke about Shternberg
with Vasily V. Radloff, the head of the Museum of An-
thropology and Ethnography (MAE) and a leading spe-
cialist on the languages and folklore of the Turkic-
speaking peoples of Central Asia and southern Siberia.
After describing in glowing terms Shternberg's Cilyak
ethnography and the ethnographic community's re-
sponse to it, Krol' managed to convince Radloff that
his friend had to reside in St. Petersburg and work for
the MAE (Krol' 1944:274-6; letters from Krol' to
Shternberg, 1 899-1 900, AAN, 282/2/1 57). Thanks to
Radloff's intercession, the police gave Shternberg—
who was required by law to reside within the "pale of
Jewish settlement"— a three-month permit to live in the
capital. Bogoras also spoke to Radloff about his friend's
research and sent Shternberg instructions on how to
prepare his linguistics work so as to make it more inter-
esting to the MAE, especially to Karl Zaieman, a mem-
ber of the Academy and a prominent specialist on Cen-
tral Asian languages (Bogoras' letters to Shternberg, 1 899,
AAN, 282/2/34, pp. 15-17; Zaieman's letters to
Shternberg, 1 900-01 , AAN, 282/2/1 07). Shternberg's

friends' efforts paid off: in the spring of 1 899 Zaieman
agreed to examine his "Obraztsy materialov po
izucheniiu giliatskogo iazyka i fol'klora" (Samples of
materials for the study of the Cilyak language and folk-
lore) and was very impressed with the work. Later that
year, Zaieman and Radloff invited Shternberg to St.
Petersburg, where he spent several months interacting
with them and several other prominent linguists and
ethnologists. With substantial help from Zaieman,
Shternberg prepared his "Samples" manuscript for pub-
lication, and in 1900 it appeared in the RAS publica-
tion series (Shternberg 1 900). By that time, Shternberg's
permit to reside in the capital had been extended, and
he could finally bring his wife, Sarra Ratner, there.

Through Krol', he also met a number of prominent
liberal journalists, many of them populist sympathizers
or "legal populists" (Malinin 1991), as well as future
leaders of the Constitutional Democrats (KD), Russia's
leading liberal political party. As a result, he began
writing on political subjects for several well-known pro-
gressive newspapers and submitted reviews of books
on ethnology, sociology, and related subjects to
Russkoe bogatsvo, an influential literary and political
journal of the legal populists. From then on, journalis-
tic writing remained an important avenue for express-
ing his views on social and political issues, as well as a
source of badly needed supplementary income. Most
important for Shternberg's scholarly career was an invi-
tation to become the editor of the ethnology section
of the remaining unpublished volumes of the famous
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brocl<haus and Efron, which
featured articles by the country's leading liberal intel-
lectuals. In the course of writing a large number of
entries for it and editing those written by others,
Shternberg familiarized himself with many of the latest
Russian and western anthropological publications and
reaffirmed his evolutionist position, as well as his view
of "ethnography" (anthropology) as a comparative and
holistic discipline that had to become the cornerstone
of all the humanities and the social sciences. By 1904
the project had been completed, but throughout the

SERGEI KAN

223

1 91 Os Shternberg wrote and edited entries on anthro-
pological topics for several other Russian encyclope-
dias and dictionaries. In 1901 Radloff invited him to
join the staff of the MAE, where he stayed the rest of
his life. By 1 904 he had been appointed the museum's
senior ethnographer— its second in command.

From Gilyak Ethnography to Evolutionist
Ethnology with a "Durkheimian" Twist
In the early-to-mid-1 900s, Shternberg also prepared
for publication his only two major monograph-length
works: an annotated collection of Gilyak folklore
(Shternberg 1 908), and a rather extensive Gilyak eth-
nography that elaborated on many topics only briefly
mentioned in his 1 893 essay and introduced a num-
ber of new ones (Shternberg 1 904). From the point of
view of this paper, his discussion of the Gilyak kinship
and marriage system and of the centrality of the clan
in Gilyak social life is particularly important, since it
formed the core of "Social Organization of the Gilyak."
An analysis of the 1 904 work also demonstrates the
theoretical maturity that Shternberg had achieved be-
fore beginning his earnest correspondence with Boas.

Like his 1 893 essay, Shternberg's 1 904 Gilyak mono-
graph was not a truly comprehensive one in the clas-
sic Boasian style, although it was three times as long
as the earlier piece. While it did cover a variety of top-
ics, including the origin of the Gilyak and their natural
environment, subsistence, material culture, language,
and religion, issues related to social organization were,
once again, at its core. At the very beginning of his
work, Shternberg justified his focus on this topic: "No
other aspect of the Gilyak social life differentiates them
so sharply from the surrounding peoples as their
classificatory system of relationships and the rules regu-
lating sexual relations and marriage" (1 933a [1 904]:30).
Although the new discussion of Gilyak kinship differed
from the old one mainly in the amount of detail pre-
sented and not in substance, it did contain important
new information on "a triangulated system of marital
exchange, based on a tri-clan phratry or alliance group

. . . that underwrote a complex web of mutual social
and economic obligations" (Grant 1999:xl).

As a comparative ethnologist with a secure posi-
tion rather than just an ethnographer, Shternberg
compared the Gilyak kinship and marriage system with
those of the Australian aborigines and other "primi-
tive" peoples and concluded that the former was very
similar to the "Punaluan" system documented by
Morgan. In fact, he used his own Gilyak data to "solve"
a number of puzzling questions raised by the work of
several western ethnographers in other parts of the
world. It is obvious that Shternberg's evolutionism had
become even stronger in the time between the publi-
cation of his first and second Gilyak studies. Thus, the
1 904 publication omits a passage that appeared in
the 1 893 article about the displeasure often caused
by theoretically permissible sexual liaisons among the
Gilyak. In fact, by the early 1 900s, Shternberg appears
to have become so wedded to evolutionism that he
ignored his own data on a widespread Gilyak practice
of marrying outside the prescribed clan and even out-
side the ethnic group (e.g., Shternberg 1 933a:45). For
him this phenomenon represented a more recent de-
parture from the original "pure" practice that he tried
so hard to reconstruct. As Grant (1999:xliii) correctly
points out, the clan system that Shternberg so elegantly
described "was far less fixed than he first had per-
ceived it. Given the swell of non-Gilyaks into the area,
the increasing dislocations through travel and trade,
and the demographic havoc wrought by disease," much
of what he had presented was only an ideal system.'^

To Shternberg's credit, it should be noted that when
describing the "survivals of group marriage" among the
Gilyak, he repeatedly stated that the Gilyak were not
promiscuous and that they strictly followed their own
laws of morality. Unlike most western evolutionists,
who saw "primitive" forms of kinship and marriage as
something to be overcome by progress, this Russian
populist was ambivalent about them. On the one hand,
as a firm believer in humankind's inevitable progress,
he did express hope that some day the best aspects

224

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

of European civilization would be accepted by the
Cilyak and other indigenous Siberians. On the other
hand, he admired many Gilyak customs, especially their
social solidarity and the support an individual found in
his or her primary kinship group, the agnatic clan.

In my view, it is Shternberg's detailed and sensitive
discussion of the socioeconomic and political func-
tions and religious symbolism of the Cilyak clan, which
he convincingly presented as their central institution
"regulating all of the other aspects of their life"
(1 933a:81 ), that makes his writing on the Gilyak differ-
ent from most other contemporary evolutionist accounts
of the social life and culture of "primitive peoples."
Paradoxically, while Shternberg never cites Durkheim
and Mauss in his works, his discussion of the Cilyak
clan, especially the interconnectedness between its
social and ideological symbolic dimensions and the
harmonious relationship between the individual and
the group in Gilyak society, is strongly reminiscent of
Primitive Classification (Durkheim and Mauss 1963
[1 903]) and other works by these authors. This similar-
ity should not surprise us. Like Shternberg, Durkheim
and Mauss were socialists who sought in primitive so-
cieties characterized by "simple economic relations and
an integrated socioreligious world view" (Shternberg
1 933a: 1 1 3) an alternative to modern capitalist society's
"organic solidarity" and anomie.'^ Also like Durkheim,
Shternberg was fascinated by the fact that the Cilyak
adhered to their laws "despite an almost total absence
of authority or compulsion" (Shternberg 1 933a: 1 08).

In his concern with the freedom of the individual,
Shternberg differed from Marx and Engels and their fol-
lowers. While he occasionally describes Cilyak eco-
nomic and social life as a kind of "primitive commu-
nism," he also emphasizes that among the Cilyak, "com-
munism and individualism coexist almost without ten-
sion" (Shternberg 1933a:83). Like his fellow-populists'
descriptions of the Russian peasant commune,
Shternberg's account tended to overemphasize egali-
tarianism and downplay economic and sociopolitical
inequality. He appears to have been correct, however,

in stating that in a society like that of the Gilyak, the
wealthy leaders had to support their less fortunate clan
relatives, and that clan solidarity would thus ame-
liorate the hierarchical tendencies. More important,
unlike most of the classic evolutionists or the Marx-
ists, but like Durkheim, Shternberg was interested in
the effect of a "clan-based social order" [rodovoi stroi\
on an individual's personality. In his view, an average
Gilyak had a "holistically developed personality with
its integrated world view" (Shternberg 1933a:120).

Finally, like the Durkheimians and their followers
among the British structural-functionalists, Shternberg
paid a great deal of attention to the role of religious
sanctions in encouraging the individual to adhere to
the rules and laws of his or her society. His approving
discussion of the Gilyak clan ends with a virtual hymn
to an institution that he refers to as a "whole school of
social upbringing, a school of benevolence, hospital-
ity, compassion, and . . . proper social conduct [blago-
vospitannost']. In this school those social habits and
emotions are created, which eventually become too
strong to be limited to interclan ties and evolve into
sympathy towards one's entire tribe [people] and even-
tually towards human beings in general" (Shternberg
1 933a: 1 27). Here the voices of Shternberg the ethnog-
rapher and Shternberg the populist merge into one.'^

Boas, Shternberg, and the Jesup Expedition
Publications, 1900s-1917

Shternberg's career and theoretical development are
important because of his considerable influence on
Russian anthropology. This paper, however, focuses
mainly on his relationship with Boas and Boas' efforts
to persuade him to produce a monograph on the
Gilyak for the Jesup Expedition publication series. The
development of Boas' plan for a large-scale expedi-
tion aimed at studying the cultural affinities between
the inhabitants of the coasts of eastern Siberia and
northwestern North America, and his efforts to recruit
Bogoras and Jochelson to lead the Russian part of the
expedition and then transform their field data into

SERGEI KAN

22 5

detailed monographs, have been well documented by
scholars and will not be repeated here.'*

Less known is the fact that Shtern berg's three friends
mentioned above attempted to get him, too, involved
in the project. Thus, in a letter sent some time in 1 899
to Shternberg, who was still in Zhitomir, Krol' wrote,
"Your trip to America did not materialize— they already
have their own 'Gilyak'" (AAN, 282/2/1 57, p. 1 1 0). The
reference here is obviously to Berthold Laufer, a young
German linguist and sinologist whom Boas had recruited
in 1 897 to undertake research among the Natives of
the lower Amur River and Sakhalin Island and who
spent 16 months there beginning in the summer of

1 898. In another letter to his friend, dated January 3 1 ,

1 899, Krol' urged Shternberg to waste no time and to
send at least one analyzed Gilyak text to the St. Peters-
burg academicians as soon as possible in order "to
beat Laufer" (AAN, 282/2/1 57, pp. 274-6). Thus it
appears that had Shternberg already been living in St.
Petersburg when Boas was negotiating with his Rus-
sian colleagues about the Siberian part of the expedi-
tion, he would have been hired along with Bogoras
and Jochelson. Instead, the field research in the Russian
Far East was carried out by a much less experienced
ethnographer who spoke neither Gilyak nor Russian
and who worked only through interpreters, except
when he could find a Native who knew Chinese.'^

It must not have been difficult for Boas to realize
that the data collected by Laufer were inferior to those
of Bogoras and Jochelson, the two seasoned Siberian
ethnographers. While the Russians managed to pro-
duce enough contributions to fill four volumes of the
JNPE publications, including two very substantial and
rounded monographs (Bogoras 1 904-09; Jochelson
1 908), Laufer's contribution to the same series was lim-
ited to a slim essay on the decorative art of the Amur
River tribes (Laufer 1902).^° During their stay in New
York in 1902-04, Bogoras and Jochelson undoubtedly
told Boas about Shternberg's extensive research in the
same area where Laufer had labored with such limited
results. Boas also must have heard a lot about Shternberg

in the course of his negotiations with Radloff about
sending to the MAE duplicates of the objects collected
by the two Russians for the AMNH.

Shternberg and Boas Meet
The first evidence of Boas' interest in having Shternberg
write something for the JNPE series is in Jochelson's
March 30, 1903, letter to Shternberg (AAN 282/2/124,
p. 4a). Boas had decided that Shternberg had to be
brought to New York by the end of the summer of that
year to work with the AMNH's Amur and Sakhalin col-
lection and write a monograph on the Gilyak. As
Jochelson put it, "Boas wants you to work on the col-
lection . . . but his real goal is to get acquainted with
your Amur and Sakhalin materials" (AAN 282/2/1 24,
pp. 6-7). Boas wanted the MAE to send Shternberg on
an official business trip to the United States and was
willing to commit AMNH funds to cover some of the
expenses involved (AAN 282/2/124, pp. 6-7). In a
letter to AMNH Director [Hermon C.] Bumpus, Boas
described his reasons for bringing Shternberg to New
York:

Dr. Sternberg has lived in the Amur River area
and on the Island of Sakhalin for ten years
and has made very extended studies on the
Gilyak and Ainu. The results of his investiga-
tions are being published now by the
Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Professor
Radloff thinks that it would be of advantage
to Dr. Sternberg to familiarize himself with
the collections of our Museum, and I believe
that it would be of very great advantage to
us to have Dr. Sternberg go in detail over our
Ainu and Gilyak material. I should also very
greatly value the opportunity to discuss with
him fully the tribes of the southeastern part
of Siberia, which are of great importance in
relation to the Jesup Expedition. Dr.
Sternberg's services would also be valuable
in selecting the duplicates which Mr. Jesup
intends to present to the Museum of the
[Russian] Academy of Sciences. (Boas to
Bumpus, 26 October 1903, AMNH)

Unfortunately, because of some bureaucratic prob-
lems at the AMNH, Boas was unable to carry out his
plan and decided to postpone Shternberg's visit to the

226

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

United States until 1 905. In the meantime, on April 30,
1904, he sent Shternberg an invitation to attend the
1 4th International Congress of Americanists, to be held
in Stuttgart in August 1 904 (AAN/282/2/29, p. 1 ; see
Jochelson to Shternberg, 25 January 1 904, AAN, 282/2/
1 24, p. 8; Boas to Radloff, 23 January 1 904, AMNH). As
Boas wrote to Shternberg: "Your thorough knowledge
of the Ainu and Cilyak will be of great value to us, and
I believe that the comparative points of view, which
the other gentlemen [Bogoras, Jochelson, and Laufer],
who partake in the conference, possess, will be of in-
terest to you" (AMNH). On June 6, 1 904, Shternberg
replied, thanking Boas for his invitation and for "afford-
ing" him "the possibility of taking part in the discus-
sion of the great northeastern Siberia and northwestern
America problem," which he himself had already been
"greatly interested in" (AMNH).

The congress was Boas' first opportunity to meet
Shternberg and discuss with him a variety of scholarly
issues of mutual interest in the company of Bogoras,
Jochelson, and Laufer. While all three of the Russian
participants made presentations at the congress, it was
Jochelson's (1 906) and Shternberg's (1 906a) papers that
reflected most closely Boas' comparative JNPE agenda.
For the purposes of this paper, Shternberg's presenta-
tion is particularly important, since it demonstrates that
he had been interested in that agenda for some time.

In the wake of this meeting, on March 2, 1905,
Boas sent Shternberg an official invitation to visit the
AMNH "for the purpose of examining and re-arranging
our collections from the Amur River region and also to
write out such information on the ethnology of those
tribes as may seem best after an examination of our
material, and after our discussion of your publications."
He also expressed the hope that Shternberg would be
able to share his knowledge of the region's ethnology
with Laufer, who at that time was working for the
AMNH (AAN, 282/2/29: pp. 2-3).

A few weeks later, Shternberg sent Boas a letter.
He accepted the invitation and mentioned his plans to
study AMNH's Amur and Sakhalin collection, "writing

out all the necessaries for the literary work to be car-
ried out at home" (AMNH). Although we do not know
exactly what sort of monograph Boas had asked
Shternberg to write for his series, one would suspect
that he was hoping for something as comprehensive as
Bogoras' and Jochelson's contributions. It is possible,
however, that he was willing to make an exception for
Shternberg, whose research interests, as we have seen,
had a definite focus. In a letter to Jochelson, dated
April 22, 1 905, Boas wrote, "I hope that he [Shternberg]
will contribute to our series of Memoirs a description
of the religious life and sociology of the Cilyak" (AMNH).

Shternberg arrived in New York in late April-early
May 1 905. Although his goal was to engage in mu-
seum work, he must have been preoccupied with the
dramatic events in his native country. By mid-spring of
1 905, Russia had already plunged into tremendous po-
litical turmoil. A disastrous war with Japan, begun in
1 904, broke the patience of both the ordinary people
and the liberal intelligentsia. For several years already,
the latter had been gravitating toward the underground
Soiuz osvobozhdenia (Union for Liberation), to whose
newspapers Shternberg occasionally contributed. In their
speeches given at the famous "banquets" of late 1 904,
the liberals advocated political reform and the estab-
lishment of basic freedoms. Shternberg must have been
involved in these meetings, since many of his friends
and fellow Journalists were.

Although undoubtedly encouraged by the rising
tide of the liberal and radical opposition to the old
regime, Shternberg was deeply troubled by a simulta-
neous increase in anti-Semitic propaganda and espe-
cially by the anti-Jewish pogroms that began in the
early 1900s and continued throughout the decade.
For him, the right-wing attacks on the intelligentsia
and the workers that accompanied the rise of the revo-
lutionary movement were similar in essence to the
pogroms. Having never lost his interest in the fate of
his fellow Jews, and having been galvanized by the
pogroms, Shternberg came to believe that the struggle
for political liberation and socioeconomic justice in

SERGEI KAN

227

Russia had to include a concerted effort to emanci-
pate the Jews, who were still the subject of various
forms of legal discrimination. Hence, during the same
period he began taking part in the activities of the
various organizations of the liberal Jewish intelligentsia
and wrote a number of eloquent and widely read pieces
for several major Russian-Jewish periodicals on the sub-
ject of Jewish liberation in the context of the broader
revolutionary movement (Cassenschmidt 1995).

For Boas, too, the spring and summer of 1 905 were
difficult. An increased teaching load at Columbia Uni-
versity and constant disagreements with AMNH Direc-
tor Bumpus and with President Jesup, the main patron
of the expedition, finally led him to resign his position,
on May 24, while retaining some of his salary for com-
pleting the work on the JNPE publications and several
other projects (Cole 1 999:242-60). This new develop-
ment made Boas extremely anxious to complete the
JNPE publication series as quickly as possible.

Despite these distractions, the two men quickly de-
veloped a warm relationship, with Boas frequently in-
viting Shternberg to his Columbia lectures and to din-
ners at both his city and country residences. In the
course of their conversations, the two scholars reaf-
firmed their plans concerning Shtern berg's contribution
to the JNPE publication series (AAN, 282/5/64, passim).
In fact, one of Shternberg's tasks was to select those
objects from the AMNH collection that he wished to
serve as illustrations for his book. Although he did
study the AMNH's Amur and Sakhalin materials and
discussed them with Laufer, who had brought them there,
Shternberg's written comments on them are extremely
brief (Roon 2000:141). Unless some of Shternberg's
writings on the subject have been lost, he clearly did
not have very much to say about the collection. In fact,
one of his letters to his wife mentions his not having
very much work to do at the museum (AAN, 282/5/64,
p. 98a). Although this may have been partly because
his knowledge of the material culture of the Sakhalin,
and especially of the Amur River Natives, was still some-
what limited, other factors were clearly involved.

As a Jewish socialist and a journalist, Shternberg
was fascinated with the United States. His letters to his
wife mention his wanting to be able to see more of
the country, and even his entertaining a plan of travel-
ing throughout the United States as a correspondent
for one of the liberal Russian newspapers and writing a
book about the country (AAN, 282/5/64, p. 98a).
During his relatively brief stay in the United States,
Shternberg found time to attend meetings of various
left-wing organizations (including a congress of what
he called "The American Workers' Party" in Chicago,
which he visited to examine the Field Museum's Sibe-
rian collection), as well as Jewish organizations (AAN,
282/5/64, pp. 98-1 00a). He also socialized intensely
with Russian-Jewish emigres in New York.

A few weeks after Shternberg's arrival in New York,
he learned of a terrible pogrom in his hometown,
Zhitomir, that had occurred on May 9-1 0. Even though
he soon received a telegram from his parents assuring
him that they were all right, it was obviously difficult
for him to concentrate on museum work. After two
months in the United States, he finally sailed for Eu-
rope, where he visited ethnographic museums in Swit-
zerland and Vienna. The large collections from the Rus-
sian Far East in Vienna were of special interest to him.
However, his stay in Austria was interrupted by the sad
news of his mother's death, caused by the emotional
suffering she had endured during the pogrom
(Shternberg to Boas, 28 August, 1 905, AMNH).

Political Upheaval Delays the Gilyak Manuscript
On September 21 , a few weeks after his return to St.
Petersburg, Shternberg received a letter from Boas
inquiring about the title he intended to give his contri-
bution to the JNPE publications (AAN, 282/2/21 , p. 5).
The fact that Shternberg took an entire month to re-
spond was probably attributable to the intensification
of turmoil in Russia. His response was dated October
1 7, the very day on which Tsar Nicholas II issued his
manifesto granting limited freedoms to the country's
population and promising to proceed with elections

228

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

for its first parliament (Duma). Despite these develop-
ments, Shternberg's letter sounded somber: "Our pub-
lic affairs are going very heavily. The unrest is growing
every day, the intensity of public feeling is very high,
and we are on the eve of terrible things" (AMNH).

Shternberg's mood must have given Boas reason
to worry about the future of the JNPE publications,
especially since the work of his two other Russian con-
tributors was also being negatively affected by their
country's troubles (see Vahktin, this volume). Even
Jochelson, the least politically engaged of the three,
who lived abroad for long periods of time, was being
distracted from his work by events back home (see
Cole, this volume). As he wrote to Boas in one of his
1905 letters, "You know, of course, that next to the
researcher stands in me a citizen" (AMNH, quoted in
Cole 1 999:236). Most troublesome of the "ethno-troika"
was Bogoras. After a period of silence, which worried
Boas a great deal, Bogoras wrote to Boas, on April 6,
1 905. He apologized for neglecting his scholarly writ-
ing but stated that "an epoch like this happens only
once in many centuries for every state and nation and
we feel ourselves torn away with the current even against
our will." As a European-style progressive liberal. Boas
was sympathetic to his Russian colleagues' concerns
and watched the unfolding events in Russia with great
interest. Still, for him, science came first. As he lectured
Bogoras in a letter of April 22, 1 905, "If events like the
present happen only once in a century, an investiga-
tion by Mr. Bogoras of the Chukchee happens only
once in eternity, and I think you owe it to science to
give us the results of your studies." A November 23,
1905, letter from Bogoras contained more regrets
about his lack of progress but expressed the same
sentiment: "my mind and soul have no free place to let
in science" (all correspondence from AMNH).

The final blow came on November 27, when
Bogoras was arrested because of his active involve-
ment with the All-Russian Peasants Union, which
came under government attack. He informed Boas
of his misfortune in a cable, causing his friend to

contemplate appealing to both Radloff and Jesup for
help in securing his release (see Boas' letter to Jochelson,
4 December 1905; Boas' telegram to Radloff, 10
December 1905, AMNH). While concerned about
Bogoras' safety (see Boas to Bogoras, 1 0 January 1 906,
letter, APS), Boas was also very worried about the fate
of the scientific data Bogoras had collected in Siberia.
This concern prompted an official letter to Shternberg
on January 22, 1 906, from the new head of the AMNH,
Henry Osborn,

My dear Mr. Shternberg:

You have undoubtedly heard of the arrest of
Mr. Bogoras, which we learn took place in
Moscow on November 29, but the details
concerning which we know nothing.

I have written to The Honorable George von
L. Meyer, our Minister to Russia, asking if it
would not be possible for him to make an
effort to secure any notes, manuscripts, etc.,
bearing upon the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-
tion, that may have been in Mr. Bogoras'
possession at the time of his arrest, and I
would say that if Mr. Meyer should call upon
you, I hope that you will give him such
assistance as is within your power, for I feel
that it would be a distinct loss both to the
Museum and to science if the ethnological
records in Mr. Bogoras's possession should
be destroyed. (AMNH)

Fortunately, Bogoras was out on bail two weeks later,
and by the beginning of 1 906 he was safe in Finland,
where he resumed his scholarly work (Bogoras to Boas,
1 0 January 1 906, APS). Happy to hear the good news.
Boas cautiously suggested to Bogoras that it might be
better for him "under the present conditions" to devote
his time "to scientific work" (Boas to Bogoras, 24
January 1 906, APS).

While his Russian colleagues were causing Boas a
lot of grief, so did his AMNH superiors (Cole 1 999:223-
61). Throughout the spring of 1906, he shared his frus-
trations with both Jochelson and Shternberg. Finally,
on May 24, he sent both of them similar letters
explaining the new arrangement he had worked out
with the AMNH's director and with Jesup concerning
the remaining JNPE publications. The one sent to

SERGEI KAN

229

Shternberg read:

Presumably I shall make a contract with Mr.
Jesup for completing the Jesup Expedition
publications. The only manner in which it has
been possible to make this arrangement is
for me to undertake the whole risk of
publishing the material, to pay for contribu-
tions and for assistance. . . . Since I am to be
paid after the completion of printing, it is of
course essential that the contributions come
in as promptly as possible, and I rely upon
your assistance. In making the estimates, the
best I have been able to do is to set aside
for your manuscript the sum of $1 250. (AAN,
282/2/21, pp. 14-15; see also Boas to
Jochelson, 24 May 1906, APS)

As far as the exact contents of Shternberg's manu-
script were concerned, Boas was still in the dark, ex-
cept that it was supposed to deal with "the tribes of
both the Amur River and Saghalin." In his June 8, 1 906,
letter to Shternberg, he wrote.

Will you kindly let me know . . . the general
contents of the paper that you would be
willing and ready to write for the amount
that I am able to offer you, and also when
you will be ready to let me have the manu-
script (AAN, 282/2/21, p. 16).

On August 24, 1 906, Shternberg finally responded,
blaming his long silence on the "political situation in
Russia," which had prevented him from doing much
serious work. Nonetheless, he promised to return to
the Gilyak monograph and complete it in 10 or 12
months. By that time, it must have been easier for him
to turn his attention back to scholarship: a month ear-
lier the government had disbanded the First Duma,
and the revolutionary movement was on the decline.
This letter also contained the first of Shternberg's many
requests for an advance payment, which he justified
by noting that while working on the manuscript for
Boas, he had to set his journalistic writing aside and,
consequently, stood to lose a substantial amount of
money. It is ironic that while Boas' Russian colleagues
(especially Bogoras and Shternberg) often failed to
deliver their work to him on time, they also depended
on the money he paid them for it and often reminded
him of that.

By 1 907, Boas was becoming increasingly anxious
about the delay in receiving the Gilyak manuscript,
especially since the first part of Bogoras' Chukchi mono-
graph had already been typeset and Jochelson's Koryak
manuscript was about to go to press (Boas to Shternberg,
15 February 1907, 5 March 1908, APS; Boas to
Bogoras, 16 August 1907, 4 May 1908, APS). In an-
other letter, (27 September 1 907, APS), Boas suggested
that to speed up the process, Shternberg should write
in Russian and Boas would arrange to have the work
translated into English. We do know that in 1907
Shternberg was spending a fair amount of time work-
ing on his monograph. However, various old and new
distractions, such as the political upheaval in Russia,
his heavy workload at the MAE and at the recently
established Russian Division of the International Com-
mittee for the Study of Central and Southern Asia, some
part-time teaching, his heavy involvement in various
Jewish political and cultural activities, and the need to
earn money by writing popular articles, continued to
interrupt his work.'" Except for a short essay on the
inau cult of the Ainu for a Boas Festschrift {Shternberg
1906b) and an important work on Gilyak folklore
(Shternberg 1 908), he published little during this pe-
riod. Hence, in his letters to Boas he repeatedly ex-
tended the deadline for the manuscript's completion
(see Shternberg to Boas, 28 March, 10 September
1907, APS). He was also finding that the preliminary
work of extracting the data from his field notebooks
and rewriting it for the monograph was taking much
longer than he had expected (Shternberg to Boas, 23
December 1 907, APS). His letters show that he began
his writing by dealing with those topics which were of
most interest to him, that is, "social organization and
[social] life," including kinship and marriage (Shternberg
to Boas, 10 September 1907, APS).

Boas' frustration with his Russian contributors' foot-
dragging is very palpable in a letter of March 12,1 908,
to Jochelson:

I should like to say once more that I had to
take considerable financial obligations in

230

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

order to insure the completion of the Publica-
tions of the Jesup Expedition and that I can
meet these obligations only when the contribu-
tors furnish me promptly with material, for the
reason that I am paid always after the comple-
tion of printed signatures. This is one of the
reasons why I am constantly urging you and
Mr. Bogoras and Mr. Shternberg to send me
material. Otherwise I should be only too glad to
be relieved of the necessity of pushing the
editorial work so much that I hardly get time
for anything else. (APS)

The Manuscript Begins to Come In
In mid-September 1908, on the eve of his departure
for the Congress of Americanists in Vienna, Shternberg
finally sent Boas the first section of the manuscript
(Shternberg to Boas, 30 July, 1 9 September 1 908, APS).
Its title, "The Cilyaks and Their Neighbors," suggests
that he had finally been persuaded by Boas to com-
pose a more rounded ethnography that extended be-
yond the one ethnic group he knew best (Shternberg
to Boas, 20 October 1 908, APS). On his return to Rus-
sia, Shternberg became seriously ill and did not recover
until the next spring (see Boas to Shternberg, 6 March
1 909; Shternberg to Boas, 1 0 April 1 909, APS). This
was unfortunate for Shternberg but helped him pro-
ceed with the Cilyak manuscript. On October 1 6, Boas
informed Shternberg that he had just received pages
84 through 225 (Boas to Shternberg, APS). Throughout
that year, checks from the AMNH were sent to
Shternberg regularly. A new problem that arose in 1 909
was a cutback in AMNH funding for the JNPE publica-
tions, which forced Boas to undertake some "conden-
sation" of the contributors' manuscripts (see letters from
Boas to Bogoras and to Shternberg, 5 May 1 909, APS)."

In 1910 Shternberg's work on the manuscript was
once again interrupted: an MAE-sponsored expedition
to the Russian Far East took him away from his desk for
about five months. Shternberg hoped the new data on
the Cilyak and other indigenous inhabitants of the lower
Amur River and Sakhalin Island, especially the Nanay
(Col'd), that he was planning to collect would enrich
his contribution to Boas' series (Shternberg to Boas, 27
May 1 91 0, APS). This did not really occur; because of

SERGEI KAN

the limitations imposed on his work by the demands
of the MAE and the limited funding, he spent only short
periods of time in each Native community and was
rarely able to gather information thoroughly and sys-
tematically (see his report on the expedition in AAN,
282/1 1 3; see also Shternberg 1 933a).

The end of 1 91 0 and the beginning of 1 91 1 brought
new distractions and troubles to both Bogoras and
Shternberg. Bogoras, who had apparently remained out
on bail since his 1905 arrest, was finally given a jail
sentence and was suffering from various old ailments.^^
Responding to appeals by Bogoras and Mrs. Bogoras ,
Boas had the American Anthropological Association
pass a resolution on October 12,191 0, requesting that
the Russian minister of justice allow Bogoras to have
access to all the materials he needed to continue his
scholarly work and to correspond freely with his col-
leagues abroad, as well as his publisher (APS).'^" Thanks
to Boas' efforts and those of several members of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Bogoras' sentence was
reduced, and he was finally released in April 1911.

In the meantime, Shternberg spent much of 191 1
fighting accusations, leveled against him and Radloff
by one of the MAE's collectors, that they had misappro-
priated the museum's funds and had secretly sold part
of his collection to a foreign dealer (AAN, 282/1/1 79-
1 80)." Shternberg was eventually exonerated, but, be-
ing a very sensitive and emotional person, he suffered
greatly during the investigation and could hardly con-
centrate on his work. In addition, in the early 1 91 Os he
was doing a great deal of writing for a leading Russian-
language Jewish newspaper, as well as other periodi-
cals. Finally, he played a major role in advising Semeon
(Shiomo) An-sky (Rappaport), the head of the famous
Jewish ethnographic expedition of 1 91 2-1 5 (An-sky's
letters to Shternberg, AAN, 282/2/1 75; Shternberg, ed.
1914), and he participated actively in the work of a
special bureau that advised the Duma on Jewish affairs.

Despite these setbacks, in late 1911 -early 1 91 2 the
Russian scholar returned to his Cilyak writing, and in
the winter of 1912 he was able to send Boas "the

23 1

continuation of tlie manuscript containing the last
chapters of the construction of the Cilyal< marriage"
(Shternberg to Boas, 29 February 1912, APS). As he
admitted in the same letter, this part of the mono-
graph was the most difficult for him to complete be-
cause it required a "great deal of comparatory [com-
parative] and preparatory work" and rewriting. The new
section of the manuscript mailed to Boas contained
an ambitious comparative chapter that placed the
Gilyak system of kinship and marriage in the context
of the various North Asian and North American sys-
tems. Shternberg was planning to devote the next few
chapters to a discussion of Gilyak daily life and mar-
riage customs and of the clan.

This comparative segment of the manuscript be-
came the subject of the paper Shternberg delivered in
London at the 1 8th Congress of Americanists in June
1912, in which he used his Siberian data to support
Morgan's ideas about the "Turano-Ganowanian" kin-
ship system (Shternberg 1912).^'' According to letters
home, his work was well received by prominent British
anthropologists Haddon and Rivers, even though by
this time evolutionism was rapidly losing ground in
western anthropology (AAN, 282/2/361 , pp. 95-1 03).

While in London, Shternberg and Boas had a long
discussion about his manuscript and worked out a plan
for the entire publication, which was to be a rounded
ethnography akin to the works of Bogoras and
Jochelson, rather than Shternberg's topical monograph.
Thus, in addition to the discussion of the social organi-
zation of the Gilyak, which had been pretty much com-
pleted, Shternberg promised to provide information on
their natural environment, physical anthropology and
demography, archaeology, history, material culture, lan-
guage, folklore, art, and religion (see Shternberg to Boas,
28 February 191 7, APS).

Between the end of 1912 and the beginning of
World War I, there was a steady exchange of letters
between Shternberg and Boas indicating that the work
on the monograph and its preparation for publication
were progressing steadily. In fact. Boas' letter to

Shternberg of October 26, 1 91 2 (APS), stated that he
was about to send the Gilyak manuscript to the printer
but was having some difficulty with the terms used for
the various levels of the Gilyak social order. To clarify
matters. Boas proposed a series of English terms that
to him seemed to be adequate equivalents of the Gilyak
ones. On December 1, 1912, Shternberg sent Boas a
response in which he accepted many of his sugges-
tions and answered most of his queries (AMNH). Vol-
ume 8 of thejesup Expedition series, published in 1 91 3,
carried an announcement that a monograph by Leo
Sternberg, Tribes of the Amur River, would appear in
volume 4, part 2, of the series— presumably replacing
Laufer's monograph, which had been advertised in an
earlier volume but never written.

Swept Up in World Events
Still, the work had not been fully completed, and that
bothered Boas considerably, since the AMNH was
clearly getting tired of his JNPE publication project.
Shternberg, always a perfectionist, continued to tinker
with his manuscript and complained about some inac-
curacies in the English translation (Shternberg to Boas,
23 June 1913, APS). To make matters worse, in the
spring of 1 91 3 he had experienced another set of pro-
fessional and political troubles, and he and his wife
had suffered a major personal loss, the nature of which
I have not been able to establish (see Boas to Shternberg,
29 April 1913, AAN, 282/2/29, p. 5 1 ). On October 2,
1913, Boas sent an exasperated letter to his Russian
contributor, saying:

Last time you wrote to me you said you were
going to send me your manuscript very soon. I
am exceedingly anxious to get your material. If
I do not finish my work by the last of Decem-
ber 1 91 5, the whole matter will be at an end,
and I am simply held up by you. Can you not
please finish your part of the work, so that we
can at least go ahead with that part that has
been translated? (AAM, 282/2/29, p. 54)

On November 18, 1913, Boas acknowledged hav-
ing just received the ill-fated manuscript and wrote
that he was planning to send it to the printer very

232

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

soon. He begged Shternberg to read the proofs as
soon they reached him. One difficulty remained, how-
ever; Boas could not print the table of contents, since
he did not know exactly what Shtern berg's further plans
were. He also continued to press his colleague to "keep
up the work, because, as I told you several times, the
time is drawing very near when the work must be
closed. The whole labor after I receive your manu-
script—translation, revision, etc.— means a great deal
and consumes much time" (APS).

Unfortunately, in 1914 it was Boas' turn to delay
the publication of the Cilyak monograph. As he com-
plained to Shternberg in an April 1 7 letter of that year:

The delay in printing is due to the very great
pressure of work here. It so happens that so
much has accumulated this winter, that,
although I made a start with your material
several times, it had to be put aside again.
My present plan is to take it up seriously in
May, and it will then go to the printer at
once. I do hope that you will go right on
with your writing, so that we can get the
whole matter under way before my contract
expires. Even after I receive your manuscript,
it will still take quite a little time before we
can get it published. (AAN, 282/29, p. 57)

With the onset of fighting in Europe, the work on
the JNPE publications slowed even more. In a letter to
Clark Wissler of the AMNH Department of Anthropol-
ogy (10 October 191 5, AMNH), Boas mentioned that
he had in hand a "paper" by Shternberg on the Cilyak,
"although the actual printing will probably have to wait
until the end of the war." On September 28, 1 91 6, he
sent a similar message to Shternberg, saying that even
though he now had the entire manuscript, he was "quite
unable to send it to the printer. I do not receive the
proofs that are sent to me from Leiden, and all printing
has probably stopped" (AAN, 282/2/29, p. 62).

Both Shternberg and Boas were deeply disturbed
by the war in Europe, though for somewhat different
reasons. As was the case with many other moderate
former populists (who either joined or at least sympa-
thized with the Socialist Revolutionaries, or SRs) and
with liberals further to the right, Shternberg, like Bogoras,

became a "defensist" (oboronets) patriot during the
war and was very upset about Russia's losses
(Melancon 1 990). In addition, he was deeply troubled
by the anti-Jewish propaganda and violence commit-
ted by the Russian army in those parts of the country
where the fighting took place (Cassenschmidt 1 995)."
Boas was upset about the war because it pitted his
native country against his adopted one and its allies
and demonstrated how brutal the most "civilized" Eu-
ropeans could become. Along with some other liberal
and leftist American intellectuals, he took a pacifist
position that made him quite unpopular among his
more conservative colleagues (Stocking, ed. 1974:
331-5; Stocking 1992: 102-6). Boas' state of mind
during this time is well captured in his September 28,
1 91 6, letter to Shternberg: "I hope that at a later time
I may write to you more fully. At present it is hardly
possible to write about anything serious" (AAN, 282/
2/29, p. 62).

Despite their preoccupation with the war, both schol-
ars continued their administrative and scholarly work
throughout this period, with Boas publishing his monu-
mental Tsimshian Myths (Boas 1916) and Shternberg
delivering several key lectures at the meetings of the
Ethnography Division of the Russian Ceographic Soci-
ety and publishing an important essay on comparative
religion (Shternberg 1 91 6). Finally, during the war, after
years of giving various small and unofficial ethno-
graphic and museological seminars and lectures within
the MAE walls, Shternberg received an opportunity to
give regular lecture courses in "ethnography" (anthro-
pology) at the "Higher Ceography Courses."

The Fate of the Cilyak Manuscript after
the Bolshevik Coup

It is surprising that Shternberg's letter to Boas (prior to
a six-year-long silence), written during the height of
the revolution of February 1917, does not mention
that event. After all, like the majority of Russia's
intelligentsia, he enthusiastically welcomed the over-
throw of the monarchy and the establishment of the

SERGEI KAN

233

Provisional Government, dominated by the liberals and
the moderate socialists. From the time of the February
Revolution until the beginning of 1918, he plunged
into political activities, including those that would have
been illegal before the fall of the emperor. As always,
his most important political activity was journalism.
He joined the staff of Volia naroda (People's Will), a
newspaper reflecting the views of the most moderate
wing of the SR party, which fully supported the poli-
cies of the Provisional Government and was highly
critical of the Bolsheviks. Following the October 191 7
Bolshevik coup, the Volia naroda office was raided
several times by the government and was finally closed
down in February 1918.

After that, Shternberg must have curtailed his SR
activities, since he did not leave St. Petersburg (then
called Petrograd) during the Civil War or go underground.
Moreover, since he never placed his political involve-
ment above his work at the MAE, he must have felt
compelled to devote most of his energy to serving as
its chief administrator after RadlofFs death in the spring
of 1 91 8. The years between 1 91 8 and the early 1 920s
were the most difficult in his life and in the lives of
other Russian intellectuals. This was especially so in
the capital, which was located very close to the front
lines and where severe food and fuel shortages con-
tributed to a general deterioration of economic and
social life. In addition to these physical privations,
Shternberg, Bogoras, and Jochelson suffered greatly from
a travel and communication blockade that for several
years cut them off from any contacts with their col-
leagues abroad and from receipt of scholarly publica-
tions (see Jochelson to Boas, 1 0 October 1 92 1 ; Bogoras
to Boas, 1 7 February 1 923, APS).

During this period, Petrograd experienced one of
the worst manifestations of Bolshevik dictatorship and
Red Terror. Many of Shternberg's colleagues and
friends, who tended to be affiliated with the KD and
SR parties, emigrated or were arrested. Shternberg and
Jochelson, who had also been involved in Volia naroda,
themselves fell victim to this terror on February 25,

1 921 , when they were placed in the infamous "House
of Preliminary Confinement" as part of a large-scale cam-
paign of arrests conducted by the Bolshevik secret
police in the city during the "Kronstadt Mutiny."^* For-
tunately for the two ethnographers, a prominent Rus-
sian writer, Maxim Gorky, intervened on behalf of some
of the arrested intellectuals, and this led to their re-
lease on March 2 (AAN, 282/1/102, p. 41).

Although by the time of this brief arrest Shternberg
had completely withdrawn from any anti-Soviet activ-
ity, he remained dedicated to the populist ideology of
his youth and to supporting his fellow populists. In the
summer of 1922, this courageous man composed an
appeal to the Soviet government, which was signed by
a number of veteran populists, asking the government
to be lenient toward and not shed the blood of the
"right-wing SRs," on trial in Moscow at the time (AAN,
282/1 /1 02, p. 42-3;Jansen 1 982).

One might ask why Shternberg, who never became
an ardent supporter of the Soviet regime, did not leave
Soviet Russia, as Jochelson and a number of his other
colleagues did.^^ My guess is that his dedication to the
MAE, whose de facto director he was between 1918
and 1 922, was a major reason for his decision to stay.
In addition, it was under the new regime that he finally
was given an opportunity to establish the teaching of
anthropology at the university level, first in the Eth-
nography Division of the Geography Institute and, be-
ginning in the mid-1 920s, in the Ethnography Depart-
ment of the Geography Division of Petrograd (later,
Leningrad) University. Not only did he teach a variety
of courses in those institutions; he served as well as
the dean of the Ethnography Division and later of the
Ethnography Department. He also brought Bogoras into
these institutions, and the latter became his closest ally
in the work of establishing what became known as the
Leningrad ethnographic school (Ratner-Shternberg 1 935;
Gagen-Torn 1 971 ; Staniukovich 1 971 ; AAN, 282/1/1 35
and 1 79).

With the death and departure of a number of promi-
nent Russian ethnographers, Shternberg became one

234

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

of the remaining leaders of the discipline, especially in
Leningrad. Thanks to his and Bogoras' tireless efforts,
the new regime came to recognize the importance of
ethnography as a field of knowledge with practical ap-
plications and as a major component of the higher-
education curriculum and began supporting it finan-
cially (Solovei 1 998). Shternberg must have understood
that his departure would be a major blow to the young
discipline to which he had devoted much of his life.

After Dubnov, the long-time president of the Jewish
Historical-Ethnographic Society, emigrated, Shternberg
took on that job in 1 923 and also became the editor of
the society's journal, Evreiskaia Star'ma, which he tried
to make more anthropology-oriented (Shternberg 1 924,
1928). It also appears that, like many other Russian
intellectuals, he welcomed the degree of liberalization
that occurred in the early-to-mid-1 920s, when the New
Economic Policy reintroduced some private enterprise,
censorship eased a bit, and travel abroad again became
possible. Shternberg might have been hoping that the
new regime would eventually become softer and more
humane. In addition, until the late 1920s old populist
revolutionaries who, like him and Bogoras, remained
in the country and did not oppose the regime were
treated by the regime with considerable respect.

The resumption of scholarly contacts with the west
in the early 1 920s allowed Boas to renew his ties with
Shternberg and his other Russian colleagues. In Sep-
tember 1921 he managed to send his first letter to
jochelson; the latter shared it with Bogoras and
Shternberg (see Jochelson to Boas, 1 0 October 1921).
As far as the "ethno-troika" was concerned. Boas had
two major worries: their physical survival, and the con-
tinuation of their scholarly contributions to the various
series of which he was the editor.3°To help support his
Russian colleagues. Boas managed to get the AMNH
president to commit museum funds to remunerate them
for their writing. As Boas' identical letters to Bogoras
and Shternberg, dated December 9, 1 92 1 , stated.

President Osborn of the American Museum of
Natural History has asked me to inquire what

material connected with your research in
Siberia you have on hand for immediate
publication, the amount of time needed for
this work and the financial remuneration
expected. When he has received this data, he
will consider what plan for publication can
be adopted. (APS)

Boas' primary goal was clearly to help his Russian friends,
since this time he did not specify which projects he
would like them to work on. Even in Shternberg's case,
he did not name the Gilyak monograph but only men-
tioned "some subject on the Amur River tribes" (Boas
to Shternberg, 17 May 1922, AAN, 282/2/29, p. 66).
The remuneration proposed by Osborn was quite gen-
erous, especially for the starving Russian scholars:
"$300 to be divided into equal monthly installments
for the rest of the current year from the moment that
the agreement goes in effect" (AAM, 282/2/29, p. 66).^'
While Boas was rather vague about the work
Shternberg was expected to do in return for this assis-
tance, Shternberg himself was quite specific. In hisjune
20, 1922, letter to Osborn, in which he accepted the
museum's offer, he wrote about "preparing for you a
part of my monograph on the Ciljaks, The Family and
the Cens [Clan]" (AMNH). This suggests that he was
planning to continue working on his Gilyak monograph.
At the same time, it appears that after some 1 8 years
of working on this book, he was beginning to get
tired of it and that new research interests were occu-
pying his mind at that time. Thus, in February 1 923, he
wrote to Boas that he had recently prepared:

a ready paper on the genesis of the idea of
election in primitive religion, especially in the
Siberian shamanism, developing entirely new
and important facts of the psychology of the
shamans, from my own observations and
unknown manuscripts and from my corre-
spondents. It is written in Russian and [is]
now in the process of translation. It is not
exactly the subject proposed by you, but for
two reasons I prefer to send it as my firstling,
1) because it concerns the religious ideas of
all Siberian tribes including the North-Eastern
ones, 2) I am till now uncertain about the
fate of my first chapters on the Giljak; under
such circumstances I am not sure if the

SERGEI KAN

235

continuation will not have the same fate as
the preceding ones. Please let me know
about it. In any case I do not cease to
prepare my Giljak materials in attending your
answer. (21 February 1923, APS)

It is not clear why Shternberg was uncertain of the
fate of the portion of the Cilyak manuscript that he
had delivered to Boas 10 years earlier, but for some
reason he felt that it was not ready for publication.
Boas did not respond to this letter for over a year, but
we do know from Jochelson's letter to Shternberg,
written in March 1923 from New York (AAN, 282/2/
124, pp. 37-40), that he was not pleased with
Shternberg's change of plans and was expecting him
to "continue working on the materials for the Jesup
Expedition . . . and not to send any theoretical articles
to him." Jochelson also informed Shternberg that his
American colleague was not going to help publish his
"Divine Election" essay in an American journal. The fact
that Boas was clearly losing patience with Shternberg
is reflected in his May 1 , 1 924, letter to him:

"I wonder what you have been doing in
regard to the manuscript for the Museum.
There has been such a delay in publishing
your Cilyak material that I do not know just
what to do. I should like to know particularly
whether the manuscript which I have may be
printed as it stands or whether you want to
revise it" (AAN, 282/2/129, p. 72).

In August 1 924, a reunion of Boas, Bogoras, and
Shternberg took place at the 21st Congress of
Americanists in the Hague and Coteborg. In addition
to attending the congress, the two Russian scholars
spent over two months in Europe buying books for
the MAE and other Academy of Sciences institutions
and libraries, reading the latest anthropological works,
and conversing with foreign scholars. For both of them,
this first trip abroad since the start of World War I was
an exciting experience. They not only met many of
their old colleagues and friends but also made impor-
tant new contacts with prominent scholars from
Scandinavia, England, France, Cermany, the United
States, and other countries. For Shternberg, the
most important links of this kind were the collegiate

236

relationships he established with Eriand Nordenskiold,
Charles Seligman, Paul Rivet, and Marcel Mauss (see
AAN, 282/2/203 and 162). Conversations with them,
combined with a great deal of reading, familiarized
him with the new developments in western ethnology
from which he had been cut off for almost a decade.
Shternberg's essay (1926) reviewing these develop-
ments demonstrated that while he was enthusiastic
about some of them, such as Malinowski's Trobriand
work, the extensive field research by Boas' students
among American Indians, and the increased attention
to psychological issues demonstrated by Seligman,
W. H. Rivers, and others, he remained strongly commit-
ted to evolutionism and was unhappy about the
antievolutionist position most of his western colleagues
had taken.

As always, Shternberg used his foreign trip not only
to visit museums and learn about new work in his field
but also to observe local political and social life, in-
cluding left-wing and Jewish activities. His letters to his
wife written on this trip (AAN, 282/2/361 ) indicate that,
despite his and Bogoras' ongoing disagreements with
Soviet government policies, they thought of themselves
and were treated as the official representatives not only
of the Academy of Sciences but also of their new state.
While the majority of the scholars they met were cour-
teous toward them, Shternberg felt that those with more
liberal and leftist views were particularly friendly. Among
them were Mauss and Rivet (both socialists) and Boas
himself. Shternberg wrote home about his old Ameri-
can colleague,

"Boas spent most of his time with us and did
it as a demonstration to others, even though
he was the central figure at the congress. Our
interaction with him was not only scholarly
but personal and political. As far as his soc.
[socialist?] views are concerned . . . they are
very similar to ours; I might even say he is
more radical than I am" (AAN, 282/2/361,
pp. 202-3a).

The last sentence suggests that Boas, who in the
1 920s became quite sympathetic toward the new So-
viet regime, might have been more idealistic about life

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

in the USSR, which he observed from a distance, than
his Russian colleagues, who experienced it first hand
(see Jochelson to Shternberg, 12 March 1923, AAN,
282/2/1 24, p. 24). Although toward the end of the
1 920s and in the 1 930s, Boas became more critical of
the political and ideological climate in the USSR (APS),
he remained a strong advocate of Soviet-American
scholarly cooperation. In the 1 930s, using his ties with
Bogoras, he helped several young American ethnolo-
gists go to Leningrad to study and do research at the
MAE and brought one Soviet ethnography student,
Juliia Averkieva, to study with him in New York and
accompany him to the field (see Krupnik 1 998).^-^

As Shternberg wrote to Boas prior to his departure
for western Europe, he was anticipating being scolded
by him for taking so long to complete the Cilyak manu-
script (Shternberg to Boas, 5 July 1924, APS). His ex-
pectations proved correct, as his letters to his wife and
especially Boas' October 29, 1 924, letter to him indi-
cate. Since this was Boas' last detailed communication
to Shternberg on the subject, it is worth quoting a large
section of it here.

My dear Dr. Sternberg:

Allow me to very briefly repeat the various
points that we discussed and partly agreed
upon at our meeting this summer. First of all,
you agreed to send me the chapter on the
social organization, history, and statistics of
the Cilyak, which is to be covered by the
payment of $300 that was made to you
about two years ago by the Museum. I am
retaining one part of your manuscript which
forms part of this chapter. Furthermore you
made the following proposal: to finish by
August 1925 the chapter on mythology and
folk-lore of the Cilyak; by March 1926 the
chapter on religion and history; by August
1 926 the chapter on material culture. You
asked that if you were to undertake this, the
sum of $2,000 a year be paid to you for the
years 1925 and 1926. Furthermore you
estimated that the sum of $500 would be
required for illustrations, translations, and so
on. Furthermore you were going to include
material on the Col'd and Ainu in your
manuscript, which you were going to deliver
in English. (APS)

It appears that by this time Boas had realized that
to get his Russian friend to complete this work, he
simply had to make him commit to a definite sched-
ule. It is worth noting, however, that Boas left the door
open for the possibility that, after 20 years of waiting
for the Shternberg manuscript, the AMNH administra-
tion might refuse to continue paying him. As Boas put
it, "I have, of course, not been in a position to make
any arrangements, and it remains to be seen what I
can do" (APS)." Shternberg's December 24, 1 924, re-
sponse to this letter shows that he was well aware of
Boas' impatience. In it, he informed his friend that he
was working on the "continuation of the social cul-
ture," which was to be "not of a small size." Clearly
dissatisfied with Alexander Coldenweiser's translation
of his manuscript, he was going to have it translated in
Russia. He also wrote about a new obstacle he had to
overcome in order to complete the Cilyak book: very
poor health (APS).

That was not the only factor hindering his Cilyak
work. On their return to Russia, he and Bogoras were
forced to engage in a major battle with zealous Marx-
ist education officials to save the curriculum they had
developed for the Ethnology Division of the Ceogra-
phy Institute from the introduction of new ideologi-
cally driven courses and the reduction of fundamental
academic ones (Ratner-Shternberg 1935). Although
they did win a partial victory, the ideological climate
in the country was clearly beginning to change, and,
consequently, the higher education curriculum was be-
coming increasingly politicized (Solovei 1 998; Konecny
1999). In addition, in 1924-25 Shternberg's work at
the MAE kept him very busy. On the one hand, he had
to deal with periodic confrontations between his own
faction and that of the museum director, Academician
Karskii (Ratner-Shternberg 1 928; Reshetov 1 996; AAN,
282/4/9, pp. 1 65-72).^'' On the other hand, in the mid-
1920s he was able to use increased government
support for the MAE to finally begin work on his pet
project— the department for the "evolution and typol-
ogy of culture" (Staniukovich 1 978).

SERGEI KAN

237

Consequently, by April 1925, Boas still had not re-
ceived any new installments of the Cilyak manuscript
(see Boas to Wissler, 5 April 1926, AMNH; Boas to
Shternberg, 9 April 1 925, APS). By the end of that year,
he finally heard from Shternberg, who hinted at the
difficulties he had to deal with "during this trouble-
some year." That letter also contained a puzzling post-
script saying that he had not received a copy of his
manuscript and was anxious to get it. Does this suggest
that Shternberg wished to see the material he had sent
to Boas before World War I, to make changes in it?

By the end of summer 1 926, Boas was clearly fed
up with his two Russian colleagues, and on August 1 4
he sent them rather stern letters which seemed to sug-
gest that he was giving them one last chance to com-
plete their work. His letter to Bogoras said:

I have been hoping for all these many months,
or years, to get the promised material from
yourself and from Sternberg. I made myself
responsible for it at that time to the Museum
and I feel in a very awkward position because
nothing comes. Can you not find your Eskimo
material that you promised me and let me have
it? (APS)

The one to Shternberg was similar in tone and even
went so far as to remind the addressee that he had
failed to repay Boas for the help offered to him in the
early 1 920s:

May I not hope that you will send me some-
time, the material on the Amur tribes that you
promised me? I am, of course, in a very awk-
ward position because at the time when I got
the Museum to help you out I undertook to
promise that you would furnish a certain
amount of work, so that the responsibility in a
way rests with me. (APS)

Despite its severity, the letter ended on a more ami-
cable note: "But setting aside the point, I should like,
of course, very much to have the valuable information
on these tribes for publication."

Little did Boas know that this would be his last
letter to Shternberg. The latter took over half a year to
respond, prevented from doing so by poor health, his
various duties at the university and the museum, and a

long and arduous trip to Japan to attend the Third
Pacific Scientific Congress in November 1926. In his
own last communication with Boas, dated September
1 5, 1926 (APS), Shternberg mentioned that he was
about to embark on this trip and complained that
he would much rather have attended the 22nd
Americanist Congress, to be held in Rome during the
same month, where he had hoped to see his old friend.
However, he did have some good news for Boas con-
cerning the Gilyak manuscript: "a great deal is done, it
waits now only to be translated and after my return it
will be finished." The letter indicates that Shternberg
felt guilty about his having received money for work
that took so long to complete: "I am happy to be able
. . . not only to send the Museum my work, but also to
pay my debt by cash what I hope to make either from
Japan or after my return."

Unfortunately, afterthejapanese trip, which included
a visit to the Hokkaido Ainu, Shternberg came home
exhausted and unwell. He never fully recovered, and
he passed away on August 24, 1 927. From his wife's
November 4, 1927, letter to Boas (APS), we learn that
only a few days before his death he was still working
on the Gilyak manuscript.

Unaware of Shternberg's illness, and still frustrated
with his colleague's constant promises. Boas no longer
wrote to him. Instead, he sent a letter to Bogoras, with
whom he was about equally frustrated but who had
always been his closest friend in the "ethno-troika":

Jochelson tells me that you wrote to him that
you hoped to send me the Eskimo material this
spring. I devoutly hope that this may be the
case. I believe you know how embarrassing it is
to me that this matter is still hanging; both in
your case and that of Mr. Sternberg. It is not
the question that Mr. Sternberg has to furnish
an enormous amount of material, but if he
would only send a little of his Gilyak work;
whatever may seem most convenient to him.
(Boas to Bogoras, 25 February 1927, APS)

This letter shows that by 1927 Boas had become so
frustrated with Shternberg, and so uncomfortable
vis-a-vis the AMNH, that he was willing to publish any
Gilyak manuscript of his, regardless of its content.

238

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

The Saga of the Gilyak Manuscript after
Shternberg's Death

Shternberg's death was a major blow to Boas. Aside
from the stop it put to his decades-long efforts to
procure a substantial monograph on the peoples of
the Russian Far East, it took away a dear old friend and
colleague (see Boas to Bogoras, 31 October 1927,
APS). At the 23rd Americanist Congress, held in Sep-
tember 1 928, Boas memorialized Shternberg as "the
leader of the Russian ethnologists" who was an out-
standing specialist on the peoples of the Amur River
and Sakhalin Island and whose "influence over the study
of ethnology extended over the whole world." He also
described him as "a dear, personal friend" whose loss
Boas was "feeling keenly" (Boas 1 930:xxviii-xxix).

Two years later, at the next congress, Boas offered
a more detailed assessment of his friend's scholarly
contributions (Boas 1 934:xl-xli). Since this was a con-
gress of Americanists, he stressed the importance of
Shternberg's ethnographic research for the establish-
ment of cultural links between America and the Old
World. He also referred to him as someone who since
1900 "had been our colleague and participant in the
publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition,
whose work represented a major element of that
project." As far as Shternberg's theoretical position was
concerned. Boas did express his reservations about it.
He stated that his colleague had observed "unique
forms of group marriage and kinship system which he
interpreted in terms of Morgan's theory" and that made
him "one of the most zealous recent defenders of the
entire Morganian scheme and the general evolution-
ary theory." He went on to say that "no matter what
our attitude towards these theories might be, his
important observations must be taken into serious
consideration." He also stressed the importance of
Shternberg's work on the religion of the Amur River
peoples, which he had used as data for his general
theory of religion. Finally, Boas praised the decedent's
work at the MAE and Leningrad University and con-
cluded that those who called him "the Russian Bastian"

SERGEI KAN

were not incorrect. Closing his remarks on a personal
note, he called Shternberg one of his "most modest
and amiable comrades whose friendship I consider to
be one of the most valuable memories of my life."

After nearly giving up on ever being able to pub-
lish his friend's manuscript. Boas must have been pleas-
antly surprised to receive a letter from Shternberg's
widow a couple of months after his death informing
him that she had found a manuscript on the "Gilyak
family and clan" among her late husband's papers (see
Grant 1 999:xlvii-liv). Sarra (Ratner-)Shternberg asked
whether she should send it to Boas and whether Boas
had any unpublished parts of the same work in his
possession (S. Shternberg to Boas, 4 November 1 927,
APS). Two weeks later. Boas replied that he was happy
to learn about her discovery, did have "the first part" of
Shternberg's work, and was still interested in publish-
ing it after all those years (Boas to S. Shternberg, 1 9
November 1927, APS). On January 26, 1928, Ratner-
Shternberg replied that she was trying to verify her late
husband's transliteration of Native words with the help
of the Gilyak students from the Northern Section of
Leningrad's Oriental Institute but that such work took a
while to complete (APS). On March 19-20, 1928, she
informed Boas that she had recently mailed him the
entire manuscript except for the sections dealing with
Gilyak language and folklore, which she wrongly as-
sumed to have been copies of the materials that had
been sent to him long ago. Boas did receive the manu-
script, but, as he informed Mrs. Shternberg, who was
becoming increasingly impatient about the delays in
printing it (see S. Shternberg to Boas, 25 October 1 928,
APS), "we are going to publish the manuscript of Pro-
fessor Sternberg but conditions here are such that pub-
lication always very slow" (Boas to S. Shternberg, 1 7
January 1929, APS).

Having begun to doubt whether her late husband's
monograph would ever be printed in the United States,
Sarra Shternberg put her energy into trying to get it
published in her own country. Several of her husband's
students, particularly E. A. Kreinovich, who had already

239

undertaken extensive field research among the Sak-
halin Gilyak (Kreinovich 1973) and was fluent in their
language, were recruited to help in this work. Her
efforts finally paid off when large portions of the Gilyak
monograph appeared in two collections of Shtern-
berg's published and unpublished works (Shternberg
1933a, 1933b; see also Grant 1 999;xlvii-liv). Still,
Ratner-Shternberg refused to give up on the English-
language publication of her husband's monograph and
recruited Averkieva, who had come back to Leningrad
after studying and conducting research in the United
States, to work on (re)translating it into English (see
Grant 1999:xlix).

During the early 1 930s, Boas, too, was still hoping
to publish the Gilyak monograph. He mentioned that
in his speech about Shternberg at the 1 930 Americanist
Congress in Germany, and he promised Ratner-
Shternberg in his September 8, 1 931 , letter (quoted in
Grant 1 999:240) that her husband's manuscript was next
in line after the JNPE volume dealing with physical
anthropology, which had just been published (Oetteking
1930). By this time, Boas' declining health was a new
factor in the slowing down of the publication process
(see Boas to Bogoras, 2 June 1 932, APS). Nevertheless,
work continued. Even as late as 1 933, an exchange of
portions of the manuscript between Boas and Mrs.
Shternberg was still taking place and in his last letter to
her, dated March 1 7, 1 933 (APS), Boas wrote that he had
finally received it from her and was going "to try to get
the printing started just as soon as possible." Three
days later, he sent a similar letter to Wissler at the AMNH
(20 March 1 933, AMNH). The latter responded the next
day, informing Boas that although the museum's bud-
get was "somewhat disorganized at present," he had
asked for an appropriation to cover the printing of the
paper. By late May of that year, the entire matter seems
to have been settled, and the Brill company was ready
to proceed with the publication of Shternberg's work
as part 2 of volume 4 in the JNPE series (Wissler to
Boas, 27 April 1933; Brill to Boas, 24 May 1933; Boas
to Wissler, 25 May 1 933, AMNH).

240

Final Collapse

The manuscript's saga, however, was not to have a
happy ending. Having given up on Boas, Ratner-
Shternberg sent him her last two angry letters on Feb-
ruary 2 and June 10, 1934 (APS). Between that year
and 1 939, no correspondence related to the Gilyak
manuscript seems to have been generated (or, at least,
could be found by Grant or myself). We do not know
exactly what caused the delays in publishing the un-
fortunate manuscript, but most likely it was a combi-
nation of the financial difficulties Brill was having, due
to a worldwide economic depression, and Boas' ad-
vancing old age, which prevented him from taking care
of his editorial duties promptly. The latter factor seems
to have been the main reason for the sad fate of the
Gilyak manuscript. A June 1 939 letter from the pub-
lisher to Boas sheds light on the situation: "A short
time ago, I . . . received the request whether a further
volume of the publication of the American Museum of
Natural History might be expected. I see in the previ-
ous letters that you wrote me about 5 years ago, that
you had not been able to finish the editorial work of
volume IV, part 2 of the Jesup Expedition as the Mem-
oirs of the Museum" (17 June 1939, AMNH). Despite
this setback, the publisher was still willing to proceed
with the publication and was awaiting Boas' quick re-
sponse. Boas' letter to Brill, written on June 30, 1939
(AMNH), blamed the enormous delay on his having been
too busy with other projects in the past few years and
on Shternberg's death, which made the final editing
difficult. He also mentioned the need to obtain the
AMNH's consent for the continuation of the publica-
tion. My guess is that Boas had not anticipated the
amount of editorial work the manuscript still required.
With its author deceased and Boas' communications
with Soviet ethnographers having come to an end by
the mid-1 930s (see Krupnik 1 998:208-9), it must have
been very difficult for him to deal with the various mi-
nor questions and problems, particularly terminologi-
cal ones, that arose during the publication process.
What Boas' letter to Brill did not mention was that,

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

since his retirement from Columbia University in 1 937,
he had become increasingly involved in writing essays
for nonacademic publications on such burning issues
of the day as the Nazi threat and intellectual freedom
in the United States (Stocking 1992:106-10). His de-
clining health was also slowing down this energetic
and prolific scholar.

Boas' interest in the remaining unpublished manu-
scripts of the JNPE revived two years later, with the
arrival in New York of the great Russian linguist Ro-
man Jakobson. Boas asked Jakobson to compare the
English-language version of the Shternberg manuscript
with the 1 933 Soviet publications on the same subject
(Boas to Wissler, 31 July 1 941 , AMNH). Jakobson must
have convinced Boas that the Russian-language publi-
cations were essentially the same as or very similar to
the manuscript in his possession. Since Wissler's Octo-
ber 1941 letter (AMNH) had informed Boas that the
museum's publication budget was at that time "hope-
lessly deficient," Jakobson's argument must have pro-
vided Boas with an excuse to end his four decades of
efforts to try to publish the Cilyak manuscript. With
World War II raging in Europe and the Pacific, nobody
had the energy or the resources to commit to this mat-
ter. Boas' last letter to Wissler on the subject, written
eight months before his death, sums up his thoughts:

As you remember the report by Sternberg on
the Cilyak has been hanging for a long time. I
have the whole manuscript ready, but owing
to financial conditions of the world and the
death of Dr. Sternberg, nothing could be
done. I have had the Russian publications by
Sternberg relating to the Cilyak investigated
and I find that all the material has been
published in Russian, so it seems to me there
is no sense in trying to publish it now in
English. ... I think it would be best to use
this translation as a book in your library. (1 6
April 1942, AMNH)

After 1942, the Cilyak manuscript remained in
the AMNH library, where it was consulted by such lu-
minaries of anthropology as Claude Levi-Strauss, who
referred to it as "a work of exceptional value and in-
sight" (1969:292) and who relied heavily on it in his

SERGEI KAN

discussion of "generalized exchange" systems. On sev-
eral occasions, the AMNH entertained the idea of pub-
lishing it. Thus, in 1950 Harry Shapiro of the AMNH
Anthropology Department sent the manuscript for re-
view to Kroeber, who praised the work's data but not
its theoretical framework. Encouraged by this review,
Shapiro attempted to recruit Shimkin, a Russian-born
ethnologist trained in the United States, to undertake
the editing needed to get the manuscript published.
Despite his interest in the project, Shimkin eventually
withdrew because of lack of time (see his correspon-
dence with Shapiro, AMNH).

The next attempt to publish the monograph was
made in 1 958-62 by Needham (1 962, 1 971 ) whose in-
terest in its account of the Cilyak marriage system had
been stimulated by Levi-Strauss's work. Once again,
nothing happened. But 40 years later, the saga of the
Cilyak manuscript finally ended on a happy note.

Comparison of the Manuscripts
I would like to briefly compare the content of "Social
Organization of the Cilyak" with that of Shternberg's
1 904 Cilyak monograph. My purpose is to establish
what exactly Shternberg had been able to write for Boas
between their first encounter and the time of his death.
I will also compare "Social Organization of the Cilyak"
with the other two major Russian contributions to the
JNPE publications, Bogoras' Chukchi and Jochelson's
Koryak monographs.

As far as the ethnographic data is concerned,
Shternberg did not add a great deal to the material
that had already appeared in his 1 904 monograph.
Having reviewed his field notes, I have concluded that
he actually did not have much to add to what he had
included in that earlier work. In fact, some portions of
"Social Organization of the Cilyak" repeat almost ver-
batim long passages from "Ciliaki" (e.g., the discussion
of the clan). However, from the point of view of inter-
preting that data and theorizing, "Social Organization"
is a very different kind of work. For example, whereas
the 1 904 essay presents a tri-clan model of Cilyak

241

marriage, the monograph written for Boas describes a
more complex one, consisting minimally of four clans
and ideally of five (Shternberg 1999:79-83). Most im-
portant, in "Social Organization," Shternberg examines
the Gilyak system of kinship and marriage not in isola-
tion but in the context of a number of other indig-
enous Siberian and even northern North American forms
of social organization (Shternberg 1999:31-8). This
discussion allows the author to show both the similari-
ties and the differences between the Gilyak cases and
the others. "Social Organization" also utilizes the Gilyak,
as well as other Siberian data, to demonstrate the fun-
damental validity of Morgan's hypothesis while point-
ing out its shortcomings.

Thus, unlike Bogoras and Jochelson, who worked
under Boas' close supervision and produced the de-
tailed, comprehensive, and largely descriptive mono-
graphs that he favored, Shternberg wrote a more mod-
ern-style topical and theory-driven work. It was, in this
sense, not unlike the monographs that began to appear
in the 1 920s and 1 930s, particularly in England, where,
during that time, interest in social organization tended
to be stronger than in the United States. In some ways
"Social Organization" reads as a much more modern
work than The Chukchee or The Koryak or, for that
matter, Swanton's Contributions to the Ethnology
of the Haida (1 905). However, if we consider these
monographs' lasting significance as rich sources of
important ethnographic data for subsequent genera-
tions of scholars (and the Native people themselves),
the works of Bogoras, Jochelson, Swanton, and Boas
himself (e.g., Boas 1 909) are more reliable and valuable
than Shtern berg's Gilyak monograph. Nonetheless, one
cannot dismiss the entire monograph out of hand: those
sections that were based on the author's careful first-
hand observations continue to be used and appreci-
ated by scholars (e.g., Black 1973; Kreinovich 1973;
Smoliak 1975; Taksami 1975; Ostrovskii 1997). We
dan only regret that Shternberg did not have the time
to include in his monograph other Gilyak materials he
had collected. For example, his portrayal of Gilyak

culture would have been much more comprehensive
had he included his rich and interesting data on Gilyak
religion, language, and folklore or had he tried more
systematically to demonstrate the interrelationship be-
tween the Gilyak social and ideational orders, as he
did in the last three chapters of "Social Organization,"
dealing with the clan."

In closing I would like to sum up the main reasons
for Shtern berg's inability to complete his Gilyak mono-
graph and Boas' failure to get it published. While much
of the blame for the former must be laid on the various
distractions that kept Shternberg from completing his
work, his own personality also played a role. Unlike
Boas, who was extremely thorough and systematic in
his work and did his best to complete the research he
had started, Shternberg preferred to write only on those
topics that really interested him and, consequently, left
a number of unfinished projects. Several of his col-
leagues and students (e.g., Bogoras 1928:16) pointed
out that Shternberg found the research involved in the
initial preparation of a lecture or a paper more interest-
ing than completing an article, let alone a monograph,
for publication. In fact, toward the end of his life he
would often say that his students were going to be the
ones to finish the various projects he had initiated (AAN,
282/l/136,pp.47-50a).

Furthermore, Shternberg set very high standards for
himself and refused to publish an article or a mono-
graph that he did not consider to have been thoroughly
researched and flawlessly written. That is why, I be-
lieve, he kept tinkering endlessly with "Social Organi-
zation." In that respect, he was closer to Boas than to
Bogoras, who sometimes published works which had
not been thoroughly researched or thought out.

At the same time, although Shternberg was ex-
tremely dedicated to his scholarly work, he was just
as passionate about his participation in the Russian
and Jewish liberation movements as he was about
anthropology. In this respect, he differed from Boas,
who, while being a conscientious public intellectual
who spoke and wrote more about many of the

2 42 THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

burning political issues than most of his fellow anthro-
pologists in the United States, still tended to place
scholarship above political involvement (Stocking
1 992). Finally, we should not forget that except for
the last decade of his life, when he became the head
of the Ethnography Division of the Geography Institute
and later of the Ethnography Department of the Geog-
raphy Division of Leningrad University, and also a mem-
ber of the Academy of Sciences, Shternberg was al-
ways struggling to survive on his modest MAE salary
and was forced to spend a good deal of time doing
journalistic work. Had this not been the case, he would
likely have left behind a more substantial body of pub-
lished scholarly works.

Thus, one cannot blame Boas for failing to obtain a
completed monograph from "the Russian Bastian." On
the contrary, Boas' relentless efforts to make Shternberg
and the rest of the Russian "ethno-troika" finish their
various scholarly projects are worthy of admiration. I
am sure that Boas did not like constantly badgering his
Russian friends. In the end, instead of criticizing Boas
for failing to complete the editorial work on "Social
Organization of the Gilyak," we should give him credit
for encouraging Shternberg to work on the manuscript
and for procuring a number of important monographs
and essays from Bogoras and Jochelson. Those of us
who have ever been engaged in any editorial work
ourselves cannot but appreciate what Boas managed
to accomplish in this area, despite the odds.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Igor Krupnik for thoughtful and
stimulating comments on an earlier version of this pa-
per and Bruce Grant for sharing with me several perti-
nent Russian publications, as well as a number of ma-
terials he had found in the Shternberg archive. I must
express special gratitude to Mikhail Fainshtein, associ-
ate director of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian
Academy of Sciences Archive, for all the help and ad-
vice he has been generously giving me since 1 998.

Notes

1 . The 1 993 paper was recently published as
Kan 2000.

2. Throughout this paper, documents from the
AAN archive are cited in the following manner:
282 [fond/collection] (Shternberg archive)/!
[opis'/section]/! 00 [delo/file], p. 1 [list/page].

3. My research was supported by a fellowship
from the National Endowment for the Humanities
and by a Dartmouth College Claire Garber Goodman
Grant and a Rockefeller Social Science Grant.

4. The expression "ethno-troika" was coined
by Bogoras (1927:269).

5. For the main Russian-language publications
detailing Shternberg's life and scholarly contribu-
tions, see Bogoras 1 927, 1 928, 1 930; Krol' 1 929,
1 944; Ratner-Shternberg 1 928, 1 935; Ol'denburg
and Samoilovich 1930; Gagen-Torn 1971, 1975;
Staniukovich 1 971 , 1 986. Sarra Ratner-Shternberg's
unpublished biography of her late husband (AAN,
282/4/9) is the most detailed source of informa-
tion on this subject.

6. See Shternberg's extensive correspondence
with Krol' (AAN, 282/2/363). Krol' was himself ar-
rested, in 1 887, and in 1 890 he was exiled for five
years to Irkutsk Province, where he conducted eth-
nographic research among the Buryat (Krol' 1 944).

7. Although the standard modern term for
this ethnic group is Nivkh (pi. Nivkhi), I use the
pre-revolutionary "Gilyak," which was used by
Shternberg himself and was retained by Grant in
the title of Shternberg's monograph (Shternberg
1999).

8. Shternberg's evolving views on the rela-
tionship between language and the "inner" or "psy-
chological" aspects of a people's culture and the
need for the ethnographer to use the local Native
language in field research may be compared with
those developed by Boas at about the same time
(see Stocking, ed. 1 974).

9. In the summers of 1 892, 1 893, and 1 894
Shternberg visited the various Native settlements
on Sakhalin, and in the summers of 1 895 and 1 896
he conducted ethnographic work along the Amur
River (see Shternberg 1 900:387-8). During the rest
of the year he made only occasional brief visits
to the nearby Gilyak settlements.

1 0. The limitations of Shternberg's ethnogra-

SERCEI KAN

243

phy did not stem from any lack of rapport with
the Natives. Most of them— especially those who
eventually became his "key informants" and
friends— trusted and liked the kind man who they
considered to be a "big Russian official" and to
whom they brought their complaints against the
local administration and even turned for assistance
in settling their internal disputes (Shternberg's
1891 diary, AAN, 282/1/3, p. 100). Students of
his who, 30 years later, worked in some of the
same places that he had visited reported that
many of the older people still remembered him
fondly (Kreinovich 1973).

1 1 . One should keep in mind that on Sakhalin,
Shternberg had no access to Gilyak dictionaries
or to linguistic studies of that language (Shternberg
1900:389). Most scholars of the Gilyak language
agree that although he never became fluent, his
command of the language was good and his analy-
sis of its structure quite adequate, especially con-
sidering the fact that he was a true pioneer in this
field (Kreinovich's 1 968 manuscript, AAN, 282/1 /
205; Ekaterina Gruzdeva, personal communication,
2000).

1 2. Although for obvious ideological reasons
Soviet scholars asserted that Shternberg had read
Engels' book before his exile (Grant 1999:xxiv), I
found no evidence of that. According to
Shternberg's letters to Krol', he was reading the
book on Sakhalin in 1889. Two years later, he
asked his friend to send him a copy of "Morgan's
book," which I assume was Ancient Society {Mor-
gan 1877) (AAN, 282/2/1 57, p. 61).

13. Although Shternberg was well aware of
the impact— much of which he characterized as
negative— of Chinese, Japanese, and Russian cul-
tures on Gilyak culture, he chose not to concen-
trate on this topic in his ethnographic writing. In
fact, his discourse on this issue sounds very
Boasian, as, for example, in the following passage:

Despite a long period of submission to the
Manchurians and a destructive influence of
the vagabond [Russian] population of the
Amur region, the Gilyak moral order has
retained many virtues of the primitive/
prehistoric [pervobytnyi] peoples. However,
their way of life is totally doomed. In one or
maximum two generations, the Gilyaks of the
mainland will become completely Russified

and along with the benefits of civilization
[kul'tura] they will also acquire all of its vices.
(Shternberg 1893: 19)

14. Shternberg used his Gilyak and Orochi
data to defend Morgan and Lubbock against at-
tacks by such scholars as Starcke and Kautsky.

1 5. Later ethnographers, particularly Smoliak
(1 975), who combined extensive ethnographic re-
search among the Gilyak and other Native peoples
of the lower Amur River region with systematic
archival research, argued that Gilyak intermarriage
with other indigenous and exogenous ethnic
groups influenced the character of many of their
settlements, making close adherence to the mar-
riage rules described by Shternberg very difficult
(seeTaksami 1 975).

1 6. See Shternberg's description of the Gilyak
clan as being "a striking combination of collec-
tive solidarity and individual freedom" (1 933a:59).

17. Despite its focus on social organization,
the 1 904 monograph gives considerable attention
to religion. This is a major difference between it
and the 1 893 piece. With over 30 pages devoted
to the discussion of this topic, Shternberg demon-
strates his considerable knowledge of Gilyak be-
liefs and, to a somewhat lesser extent, religious
practices. Although he uses evolutionist terminol-
ogy (especially Tylor's), Shternberg no longer char-
acterizes the Gilyak religion as very primitive, dem-
onstrating that his evolutionism was far from con-
sistent (see Shternberg 1 933a:51).

18. See Freed et al. 1988; Kuz'mina 1994;
Krupnik and Vakhtin 1997; Krupnik 1998; Cole
1 999:1 85-260, as well as Vakhtin's and Cole's con-
tributions to this volume.

1 9. See Pilsudskii's November 4, 1 898, letter
to Shternberg, describing Laufer's field research
on Sakhalin (Latyshev 1996:161-2); Laufer's May
1 0, 1 899, letter to Boas (AMNH); and Boas' report
on the JNPE (1903:93-8), which includes Laufer's
account of his adventures on Sakhalin.

20. Laufer also published a 30-page essay of
miscellaneous ethnographic data (Laufer 1 900).

21. In 1 907 Shternberg became one of the
founders and chief ideologues of the Jewish
People's Group {Evreiskaia narodnaia gruppa),
and in 1 908 he got actively involved in the work
of the newly established Jewish Historical and
Ethnographic Society (Gassenschmidt 1995).

244

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

22. Boas was planning to publish the "over-
flow" JNPE materials in a new Columbia Univer-
sity series (see Boas to Bogoras, 22 May 1909,
APS).

23. See, for example, Bogoras' letters to Boas
sent between October 7, 1910, and April 6, 1911,
and Boas' letters to Bogoras, dated October 12,
1910 (APS).

24. Boas was also responsible forthe AMNH's
director's appeal to the same minister on behalf
of Bogoras (see Osborn to Shcheglovitov, 28 Febru-
ary 1911, AMNH).

25. To make matters worse, these accusations
had an anti-Semitic tone that prompted Shternberg
to refer to the entire case in a letter to Boas as
"The Dreifuss Affair" (Shternberg to Boas, 1 2 March
191 1, APS).

26. Shternberg's presentation at the congress
actually mentioned that his monograph "The Gilyak
and Their Neighbors" was "about to appear in the
publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition"
(Shternberg 1912:319).

27. In the summer of 1 91 5 Shternberg learned
about these army activities first-hand when he was
sent by the Committee for Assisting the Jewish
Refugees to the front lines to investigate them
(seeAAN, 282/2/176).

28. The Kronstadt Mutiny was an uprising by
the left-leaning, but anti-Bolshevik, sailors at a
naval base near Petrograd. Although most of the
former SRs arrested during the unrest had noth-
ing to do with the rebellion, the government used
the mutiny as an excuse to isolate and terrorize
those members of the city's intelligentsia who
were not sympathetic to the regime.

29. In fall 1921, when communication be-
tween Boas and his Russian colleagues was re-
stored, Jochelson began his efforts to leave Rus-
sia. Like some of the other Russian intellectuals
who had chosen a "wait and see" attitude toward
the Soviet regime, he described his plan not as
emigration but as an extended "business trip" to
the United States on behalf of the Academy of
Sciences, for the purpose of "describing compara-
tively some of the anthropological and ethno-
graphical specimens of the American Museum of
Natural History collected by . . . Jesup North Pa-
cific Expedition" (Jochelson to the U.S. ambassa-
dor in Berlin, 21 November 1921, APS). On

Jochelson's request, Boas helped him obtain a visa
for Germany, which he had to pass through on his
way to the United States (Jochelson to Boas, 23
November 1 921 , APS).

30. In 1 91 7-1 8 Boas managed to publish two
important works by Bogoras that had been sent
to him a few years earlier: Koryak Texts (1917)
and Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and Russianized
Natives of Eastern Siberia (1 91 8).

31 . Since the United States did not have dip-
lomatic relations with Russia at that time, there
was no way for the AMNH to send money to Rus-
sia. As a solution to the problem, Boas proposed
to send food packages to Bogoras and
Shternberg (see Boas to Shternberg, 1 9 July 1 922,
AAN, 282/2/29, p. 70). In addition to food and
money. Boas arranged for American institutions,
such as the Smithsonian Institution, to send schol-
arly books and periodicals to Shternberg and other
employees of the Academy of Sciences Gochelson
to Shternberg, 20 March 1 923, AAN, 282/2/124,
pp. 37-9a).

32. Several of Boas' letters to Bogoras, writ-
ten in the second half of the 1 920s, indicate that
he himself almost made a trip to Russia (APS).

33. The same letter indicates that Boas was
also trying to get Shternberg to write a summary
entry on the Gilyak language for some sort of a
volume on Eastern Siberian languages, which Boas
was going to edit. Unlike Shternberg's work on
the Gilyak manuscript, this essay was to be pro-
vided free of charge (APS).

34. To Shternberg's disappointment, after
Radloff's death he could not be appointed direc-
tor of the MAE because the position had always
been occupied by a member of the Academy of
Sciences (Reshetov 1995, 1996). Shternberg was
finally made a corresponding member of the Acad-
emy of Sciences in 1924, but he was either too
busy or too unpopular with some of the MAE's
staff members to be made director.

35. Shternberg's 1908 monograph does not
contain any of the material on Gilyak folklore that
he had collected himself or had received from
Pilsudskii, his friend and fellow ethnographer of
the Sakhalin Natives (Latyshev 1996). These valu-
able data are still in his archive and have only
recently begun to be published and used by schol-
ars (Ostrovskii 1 997).

SERGEI KAN

245

References
Black, Lydia

1973 The Nivkh (Cilyak) of Sakhalin and the Lower

Amur. Arctic Anthropology 1 0(1 ): 1 -1 1 0.
Boas, Franz

1 903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American
Museum Journal 3{5)■.73-^^ 1 9.

1 909 The KwakiutI of Vancouver Island. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 301-522.
Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory, 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

1916 Tsimshian Mythology: Based on Texts Recorded
by Henry W. Tate. In Bureau of American Ethnology
Annual Report for the Years 1 909- / 9 / 0, 3 1 . Pp. 29-
1 037. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1 930 President's Address. In 23rd International Con-
gress of Americanists, 1928. New York. Pp. xxviii-
xxix. Lancaster, PA: Science Press.

1 934 [Address to the Congress.] In Proceedings of
the 24th International Congress of Americanists,
1930. Hamburg. Pp. xl-xli.

Bogoras, Waldemar [Bogoraz, Vladimir]

1 904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the American
Museum of Natural History, 1 1 . Leiden: E.J. Brill; New
York: G. E. Stechert.

1917 Koryak Texts. American Ethnological Society
Publications, 5. Leiden and New York.

1918 Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and Russianized Na-
tives of Eastern Siberia. Anthropological Papers of
the American Museum of Natural History, 20(1 ). Pp.
3-148. New York.

192 7 L. la. Shternberg kak chelovek i uchionyi (L. la.

Shternberg: The man and the scholar). Etnografiia

4(2):269-82. Leningrad.
1928 L. la. Shternberg kaketnograf (L. la. Shternberg

as an ethnographer). Sbornik Muzeia antropologii i

etnografii 7:4-28. Leningrad.
1 930 L. la. Shternberg kak fol'klorist (L. la. Shternberg

as a folklorist). In Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-

1927) (In memory of L. la. Shternberg). Sergei F.

Ol'denburg and A. N. Samoilovich, eds. Pp. 85-96.

Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Cole, Douglas

1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.
Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University
of Washington Press.

Durkheim, Emile, and Marcel Mauss

1 963 [1 903] Primitive Classification. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.

Engels, Friedrich

1933 [1892-93] Vnov' otkrytyi sluchai gruppovogo
braka (A newly discovered case of group marriage).
In Lev Shternberg, Sem'ia i rod u narodov severo-

vostochnoi Azii {VAmWy and clan among the peoples

of Northeastern Asia). Ian P. Al'kor (Koshkin), ed.

Leningrad: Institut narodov Severa.
1 972 [1 884] The Origin of the Family, Private Property

and the State. New York: International Publishers.
Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila
Williamson

1988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-
aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902).
American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

Gagen-Torn, Nina I.

1971 Leningradskaia etnograficheskaia shkola v
dvatsatye gody (The Leningrad ethnographic school
in the 1920s). Sovetskaia etnografiia 2:1 34-45.
Leningrad.

1 975 Lev Yakovlevich Shternberg (Leo Ya. Shternberg).

Moscow: Nauka.
Gassenschmidt, Christoph
1 995 Jewish Liberal Politics in Tsarist Russia, 1900-

1914. New York: New York University Press.
Grant, Bruce

1 995 In the Soviet House of Culture: A Century of
Perestroikas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1 999 Foreword. In Lev Shternberg, The Social Organi-
zation of the Cilyak. Bruce Grant, ed.; foreword and
afterword by Bruce Grant. Pp. xxiii-lvi. Anthropologi-
cal Papers of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory, 82. New York.

Haberer, Erich

1 995 Jews and the Revolution in Nineteenth-Century
Russia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hardy, Deborah

1 987 Land and Freedom: The Origin of Russian Terror-
ism, 1876-1879. New York: Greenwood.
Jansen, Marc

1 982 A Show Trial under Lenin. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.

Jochelson, Waldemar [lochel'son, Vladimir]

1 906 Uber asiatische und amerikanische Elemente in
den Mythen der Koriaken. In Internationaler
Amerikanisten-Kongress, 14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904.
Erste Hdlfte. Pp. 1 1 9-27. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1 908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,
vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Museum
of Natural History, 1 0. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G.
E. Stechert.

1 91 0-26 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus.
The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3.
Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory. 13. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Kan, Sergei

1 993 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph, or Why
Boas Did Not Include Shternberg's "The Social
Organization of the Gilyak" in the Jesup Expedition
Publications. Paper presented at the meeting of the

246

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

American Anthropological Association, Washington,
DC.

1 999 Historical Particularism and Evolutionism at the
St. Petersburg Museum of Anthropology and Eth-
nography. Paper presented at the 1999 meeting of
the American Society for Ethnohistory, Mashantucket
Pequot Museum and Research Center, Ledyard, Con-
necticut.

2000 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph: Or, Why
Shternberg's "The Social Organization of the Gilyak"
Never Appeared among thejesup Expedition Publi-
cations. European Review of Native American Stud-
ies : 4(2):] 9-38.

Konecny, Peter

1 999 Builders and Deserters: Students, State, and Com-
munity in Leningrad, 1917-1941. Montreal: McGill-
Queen's University Press.

Kreinovich, E. A.

1973 Nivkhgu. Moscow: Nauka.

Krol', Moisei

1 929 Vospominaniia o L. la. Shternberge (Reminis-
cences about L. la. Shternberg). Katorga iSsylkaSl-
58:214-36.

1 944 Stranitsy moei zhizni {Pages from my life), vol. 1 .

New York: Union of the Russian Jews in New York.
Krupnik, Igor

1 998 "Jesup Genealogy": Intellectual Partnership and
Russian-American Cooperation in Arctic/North Pa-
cific Anthropology (from thejesup Expedition to the
Cold War, 1897-1948). Arctic Anthropology
35(2):1 99-226.

Krupnik, Igor, and Nikolai Vakhtin

1 997 "The Aim of the Expedition . . . Has in the Main
Been Accomplished": Words, Deeds, and Legacies
of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Paper presented
at the Jesup Centenary Conference, American Mu-
seum of Natural History, New York.

Kuz'mina, Lyudmila P.

1 994 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: A History of
Russian-American Cooperation. In Anthropology of
the North Pacific Rim. William W. Fitzhugh and Valerie
Chaussonnet, eds. Pp. 63-77. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

Latyshev, Vladislav M.

1 996 Dorogoi Lev lakovlevich. (Dear Lev lakovlevich).

luzhno-Sakhalinsk: Sakhalinskii Oblastnoi

Kraevedcheskii Muzei.
Laufer, Berthold

1 900 Preliminary Notes on Explorations among the
fKmoorJnbes. American Anthropologist, n.s. 2(2):297-
338.

1902 The Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 4, pt. 1 , pp. 1 -79. Mem-
oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 6.
New York.

Levi-Strauss, Claude

1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston:

Beacon Press. First published 1949.
Malinin, Victor A.

1 99 1 Istoriia russkogo utopicheskogo sotsializma (Rus-
sian Utopian socialism). Moscow: Nauka.
Melancon, Michael

1 990 The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Russian
Anti-War Movement, 1914-1917. Columbus: Ohio
State University Press.

Morgan, Lewis H.

1 877 Ancient Society. New York: Henry Holt.
Naimark, Norman M.

1 983 Terrorists and Social Democrats. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.
Needham, Rodney

1 962 Structure and Sentiment. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
1971 Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. London:

Tavistock Publications.
Oetteking, Bruno

1 930 Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 1 , pt. 1 . Memoirs of
the American Museum of Natural History,] 5. Leiden:
E.J. Brill; New York: C. E. Stechert.

Ol'denburg, Sergei P., and A. N. Samoilovich,

eds.

1930 Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-1927) (In
memory of L. la. Shternberg). Leningrad: Akademiia
Nauk SSSR.

Ostrovskii, Aleksandr B.

1 997 Mifologiia i verovaniia nivkhov (Nivkh mythol-
ogy and religious beliefs). St. Petersburg:
Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie.

Ratner-Shternberg, Sarra A.

1 928 Lev lakovlevich Shternberg i Muzei Antropologii
i Etnografii Akademii Nauk (Lev lakovlevich Shternberg
and the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography
of the Academy of Sciences). Sbornik Muzeia
antropologii i etnografii 7:31-67.

1 935 L. la. Shternberg i leningradskaiaetnograficheskaia
shkola (L. la. Shternberg and the Leningrad ethno-
graphic school). Sovetskaia etnografiia 2:134-54.
Leningrad.

Reshetov, A. M.

1 995 Vasilii Vladimirovich Bartol'd. Kur'er Petrovskoi
Kunstkamery 2-3:37-54.

1 996 Efimii Feodorovich Karskii. Kur'er Petrovskoi
Kunstkamery 4-5:24-47.

Roon, Tatyana P.

2000 Kollektsii narodovAmuro-Sakhalinskogo regiona
V muzeiakh SShA (Ethnology collections on the
peoples of the Amur and Sakhalin region in Ameri-
can museums). Izvestiia Instituta naslediia Bronislava
Pilsudskogo 4:139-57. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

SERGEI KAN

247

Shternberg, Lev la.

1893 Sakhalinskie giliaki (The Cilyak of Sakhalin).
Etnogmficheskoe Obozrenie, 2:1-46.

1 896 Orochi Tatarskogo proliva (The Orochi of the
Tatar Strait). Vladivostok nos. 47, 48, 50, 51 .

1900 Obraztsy materialov po izucheniiu giliatskogo
iazyka i fol'klora (Samples of materials for the study
of the Cilyak language and folklore). Izvestiia
Akademii Nauk 1 3(4):387-434.

1 904 Giliaki (The Cilyak). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie
60:1-42; 61:19-55; 63:66-1 19.

1 906a Bemerkungen uber Beziehungen zwischen der
Morphologie der giljakischen und amerikanischen
Sprachen. In IntemationalerAmehkanisten-Kongress,
14. Jagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erste Hdlfte. Pp. 137-
40. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1 906b The Inau Cult of the Ainu. In Boas Anniversary
Volume: Anthropological Papers Written in Honor of
Franz Boas . . . Presented to Him on the Twenty-fifth
Anniversary of His Doctorate. Berthold Laufer, ed.
Pp. 425-37. New York: C. E. Stechert.

1 908 Materialy po izucheniiu giliatskogo iazyka i
fol'klora (Materials for the study of the Cilyak lan-
guage and folklore), vol. 1 . St. Petersburg: Akademiia
Nauk.

1912 The Turano-Ganowanian System and the Na-
tions of North-East Asia. In International Congress of
Americanists, Proceedings of the 1 8th Session, Lon-
don, 1912. Pp. 319-33. London: Harrison and Sons.

1916 Antichnyi kul't bliznetsov v svete etnografii (The
Creek and Roman twin cult in light of ethnography).
Sbornik MAE 3:133-89.

1924 Problemy evreiskoi natsional'noi psikhologii
(Jewish national psychology). Evreiskaia Starina 1 1 :
177-9.

1925 Divine Election in Primitive Religion (Including
Material on Different Tribes of N.E. Asia and America).
In Congres International des Amerlcanistes, Compte-
Rendu de la 21e Session. Deuxieme Partie. Tenue a
Coteborgen 1924. Pp. 472-51 2. Coteborg Museum.

1 926 Sovremennaia Etnologiia (Contemporary eth-
nology). Etnografiia 1 -2:1 5-43. Leningrad.

1 928 Problema evreiskoi etnografii (Issues in Jewish
ethnography). Evreiskaia Starina 12:11-6.

1933a Giliaki, orochi, gol'dy, negidal'tsy, ainy (Jh&
Cilyak, Orochi, Negidal, and Ainu), Ian. P. Al'kor
(Koshkin), ed. Khabarovsk: Dal'giz.

1 933b Sem'ia i rod u narodov severo-vostochnoi Azii
(Family and clan among the peoples of Northeast-
ern Asia). Ian P. Al'kor (Koshkin), ed. Leningrad: Institut
narodov Severa.

1 999 The Social Organization of the Cilyak. Bruce Grant,
ed.; foreword and afterword by Bruce Grant. Anthro-
pological Papers of the American Museum of

Natural History, 82. New York.
Shternberg, Lev la., ed.

1914 Evreiskaia etnograficheskaia programma. Chast'
I. Chelovek. (Jewish ethnographic program. Pt. I. The
human being). Prepared by S. A. An-skii. Petrograd: I.
Lur'e.

Slezkine, Yuri

1 994 Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of

the North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Smoliak, A. V.

1975 Etnicheskie protsessy u narodov Nizhnego Amura
i Sakhalina (Ethnic processes among the peoples of
the lower Amur and Sakhalin). Moscow: Nauka.

Solovei, T. D.

1998 Or "burzhuaznoi" etnologii k "sovetskoi"
etnografii (From "bourgeois" ethnology to "Soviet"
ethnography). Moscow: Russian Academy of Sci-
ences.

Staniukovich, T. V.

1971 Iz istorii etnograficheskogo obrazovaniia (On
the history of ethnographic education). Trudy Instituta
Etnografii 95:121-38.

1 978 Etnograficheskaia nauka i muzei (The science of
ethnography and museums). Leningrad: Nauka.

1 986 L. la. Shternberg i Muzei Antropologii i Etnografii
(L. la. Shternberg and the Museum of Anthropology
and Ethnography). Sovetskaia etnografiia 5:81-91.
Leningrad.

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1 987 Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press.
1992 Anthropology as Kulturkampf: Science

and Politics in the Career of Franz Boas. In The
Ethnographer's Magic and Other Essays in the
History of Anthropology. George W. Stocking,
Jr., ed. Pp. 92-1 1 3. Madison: University of Wis-
consin Press.
Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1974 The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-
191 1 : A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

Swanton, John R.

1905 Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida.
The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 5, pt. 1 , pp.
1 -300. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-
ral History, 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: C. E. Stechert.

Taksami, Ch. M.

1 975 Osnovnye problemy etnografii i istorii Nivkhov
(The main issues of Nivkh ethnography and history).
Leningrad: Nauka.

Tokarev, Sergei A.

1 966 Istoriia russkoi etnografii [The history of Russian

ethnography]. Moscow: Nauka.
Vucinich, Alexander

1 988 Darwin in Russian Thought. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.

248

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

62/ Lev Shternberg conducting a census among the Sakhalin Island Nivkh (Cilyak),
ca.l895(AAN/f. 282/0.1 /d. 162/1.1 18)

63/ Staff of the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (MAE)
in St. Petersburg, Russia, 1914. Lev Shternberg (first row, fifth from left); MAE
director Vasily Radloff (first row, sixth from left); Sarra Ratner-Shternberg (first
row, third from left); Waldemar Jochelson (first raw, first from right). Reprinted
from Staniukovich 1 978:1 37.

249

64/ Lev Shternberg and Sarra Ratner-Shternberg, ca. 1 9 1 5
(AAN f. 282/0.1 /d.l 94/1.1 2)

250

65/ Portrait of Lev Shternberg taken just prior to his departure for the 1 924 International
Congress of Americanists (AAN f. 282/o.l/d. 194/1.22)

251

[Mnmlier e«cb reco(4 in o(4«r oMd aad write yaw atMiv fficr BVMbar^

No. "30^

I. Place of observation. M ^"ipw

a. Date of dteervation. -i\A,„,A-^ ^

3. Name pf {dividual recorded.

4. Age Eatiiaated. rr

6. Place ^tnrth.

7. Tribe of father.

8. TrSbe erf mother.

9. Fatha- of No. 3 f ^
S<H>ofNo.
Brother of No.

10. Mode of life.

11. Beard; cokM".

12.

13.

14-

«5-
16.

18.
19

Beard oo upper {Mut of cheeks : full, medium,
scaotjr; short, long, none.

Beard on lower part of cheeks : full, medium.
^ scanty; short, long. none.

Beard on chin; full, medium, scanty;
short, long, waxt.

Mustache; full, medium, scan^;
^ort, long. ncme.

Hair: black, brown, light brown, blonde,
golden, red, gray;.

Hair : straight, wavy, curly, frizzly.

Eyes : bU»:k. dark brown, light brown, gray,

Wue. ^TVw.^ ,.-.^-f^^^
Eyes: i. 2. 3. 4, 5.

Nose : form of line drawn between eyes :
high, medium, low.

Outline of union of forehead and nose : i. 2.
3- 4-

20. Profile <rf nose : i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9.
9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14.

Point of nose : shwt, lot^ thm. thick.

N<»trils: i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Upper lip: projecting, siij^tly inclined for-
ward, vertical.

Nose and lip paraUel. omverging upward,
converging downward.

Lips : thin, medium, thick.

Ear: round, point«l.
Standing off, close to head.

First section xA helix: rolled inward, flat,
rolled back; thick, thm.

Second section of helix: rolled inward, flair
rolled back; thick, thin.

Aniihelix : flat, high; wide, narrow^

Crura : ridges flat. high.

Lobe: large, small; inched. defac6ed;>
round, triang^ar, square, divided:

Color (A skin : covered parts

oncovered parts^
|Alns of hands^

2r
22
23

24.
25-

26.

27.

28.
29.
30.

66/ Front side of the NPE North American anthropometric data sheet, filled in by Boas, 1 897 (AMNH)

252

^ 1

1 1

I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[Repeat nnaber from oilier aide.]

No, ^ ?

1 ,/,

MEASUREMENTS.

MALE.

Height standing. /L ^ /~

7- Length of head. / ^ V

Height of shoulder. / S >r 3

8. Breadt)] qt head. f

Height of point of second finger.

o 9. Height of face, f ^

Fingerreach. / ^ ^

lo. &«adth (tf face, f *^

S-

Height sitting.

\\. Height of nose. 'JT-j

6.
•

Width of shoulders. S 1 3

12. Bre»ithcrf nose. ^ ft

[No aiiention to be paid to lines bdow this role.]

INDICES.

Arm.

I. Length — breadth.

Fingerreach.

2. Length — height.

Height sitting.

3. Face.

Width of shoulders.

4. Nose.

[Hiw recnn) when filled to be returned to Fbanz BnAf, Worcester, Mau.]

67/ Back side of the NPE North American anthropometric data sheet, filled in by Boas, 1 897 (AMNH)

2. Date of observation. y/J~

3. Name of individual recorded,

[Number each record in order oaed, and write your name after number.]

a MALE

I. Place of observation. ^'^ I— c<_-«--<

4. Age Estimated.

5. Tribe. ^

6. Place of birth. Kyf/C-tZ^^ .S£.^?^-0<^

7. Tribe of father. ^-dry-t^^ Ort-yy/ k!L.<nrct^*».

8. Tribe of mother.

9. Father of No.
Son of No.
Brother of No.

10. Mode of Life. C^^t-sz-e-'/^^-/

11. Beard; color.

12. Beard on upper part of cheeks : full, medium,

scanty ; short, long, none.

Beard on lower part of cheeks : full, medium,
scanty ; short, long, none.

Beard on chin : full, medium, scanty ;
Short, long, none.

13. Mustache : full, medium, scanty ;

short, long, none.

14. Hair : black, brown, light brown, blonde, golden,

red, gray.

15. Hair: straight, wavy, curly, frizzly.

16. Eyes : black, dark brown, light brown, gray,

blue.

17. Color of Skin: covered parts. (Lc^-^M^ -^-Tt^-*^

uncovered parts, /^- j/^^t-*-'^
palms of hands, /tve^

American Museum of Naturai. Hisxoky.

68/ Front side of the JNPE Siberian anthropometric data sheet, filled in by Jochelson, 1901 (AMNH)

254

No. W i

lR«pe«t Domber from otiisr Bide.]

MEASUREMENTS.

1. H^ibt standing. / Ca ^ *

2. Height of shoulder. / 3 ^ / ^

3. He^t of point of secmid finger, s/ Co

4. Finger-reach. / , ^

5. Height sitting. ^ , /

6. Width 0* shoulders. 2^ / , V

7. Breadth of r^bt band. <^ , Q

8. Les^tb of second finger.

9. Lei^h of forearm. J to / *—
10. Length of foot. , 3

ri. Length of head. ^ ^ '

12. Breadth of head. ^ ^ t ^

13- Breadth of face. / yj^*"^

14. Height of ear. /^J~d

IS- Height of face.

I . — Hair-line — chin.

16. Height of face. / /

II. — Nasion — chin. i.

2 JJ'^

17. Height of nose. i. ^ /■

2- 6.9'

18. Breadth of nose. ^ ^ J

19. Length of right ear. Ca ' ^

20. Distance between inner comers of eyes. >^ • ^

21. Distance between outer comers of eyes. ^

22. Vertical circumference. -^S ^ , \/

23. Horizontal circumference.

24. Sagittal circumference.

,. Am. l^j^

2. Finger-reach, IQ^ ^'Z

3. Height sitting.^

4. Width of shoulders, 2f ^. ZV

(^.4! , I6.H-

INDICES.

I. Length— breadth. X ' ^

3. Nose. f^y, 1 1

69/ Back side of theJNPE Siberian anthropometric data sheet, filled in byjochelson, 1901

(AMNH)

255

^OO Year Old Questions, i OO Y^ar Qld
]3)ata, ^rand f\Jew (Computers

STEPHEN OUSLEY
AND RICHARD JANTZ

In the early 1 890s, the prominent anthropologist Daniel
Garrison Brinton forcefully and repeatedly claimed that
American Indian culture and morphology arose in the
New World after a migration over a land bridge from
Europe (Brinton 1890:38^1, 1891:17-32; 1894). He
further stated, "it is time to dismiss as trivial all attempts
to connect the American race genealogically with any
other, or to trace the typical culture of this continent
to the historic forms of the Old World" (Brinton 1 890: 1 8).

In many ways, the entire Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition ONPE) could be thought of as a direct challenge
to Brinton's ideas. Franz Boas' overarching goal for the
JNPE was to prove the connections across the North
Pacific and the superiority of conclusions based on
fieldwork and induction rather than the "armchair" de-
ductive approach of Brinton and other contemporary
scientists (Ousley 2000).' For Boas, "the study of the
physical types of the coast of the North Pacific Ocean
must form one of the most important subjects of in-
vestigation of the Jesup Expedition" (Boas 1 897b:537).

While collecting ethnographies, linguistic data, and
items of material culture, members of the Jesup Expe-
dition gathered skulls from graves and abandoned
villages, made plaster facial casts, and collected
anthropometrics (head, face, and body measurements)
and morphological observations from over 2,000 Si-
berian and Northwest Coast Natives on data sheets.
The ease of data collection and the sheer numbers
made anthropometrics the best biological data avail-
able to Boas for assessing population relationships.

and by extension, population histories. He recognized
that JNPE data could add to the large database of
North American Indian measurements already collected
under his direction (Boas 1 903).

Boas acknowledged that biological data might not
lead to the same conclusion regarding the relation-
ships between these groups as data from ethnology
and language (Boas 1 899b). Nevertheless, he maintained
that anthropometric results supported his conclusions
from the extensive ethnographic data collected, which
suggested that people from North America had re-
crossed the land bridge to Siberia (Ousley 2000). This
theory for the peopling of the North Pacific and the
New World through migrations not only eastward from
Siberia but also westward from America became
known as the "Americanoid" theory.

The anthropometric data from the JNPE and from
many other American Indian groups were recently
rediscovered at the American Museum of Natural
History (AMNH) in New York. These have been inven-
toried and computerized and now constitute the most
comprehensive database of American Indian and
Siberian biological information available Cantz 1995;
Jantz et al. 1 992). A modern statistical analysis of the
anthropometric data refutes the biological basis of the
Americanoid theory.

Franz Boas and Anthropometrics

Boas valued anthropometrics highly, having overseen
large-scale collection of anthropometric data for the

British Association for the Advancement of Science
(BAAS) and for the World's Columbian Exposition (Boas
1891a, 1895b, 1899c). Whereas museums housed
skulls that could be measured at any time, anthropo-
metrics salvaged information from rapidly disappear-
ing peoples (Boas 1891a). While at the AMNH, Boas
also oversaw the collection of anthropometric data in
Labrador, Ontario, Colombia, and nine U.S. states.

Boas was ahead of his time in believing that mea-
surements were superior to descriptions of physical
types. The differences between peoples could be as-
sessed much more reliably if the data were recorded
"in exact terms," using numbers rather than subjective
categories such as describing the breadth of a person's
nose as narrow, medium, or wide (Boas 1894a:313,
1 896). Boas believed that groups living close to each
other were often too similar to be compared using
only observational data. Most contemporary anthro-
pologists of the day, such as Brinton, believed that the
cephalic index (head breadth divided by head length)
was the only numerical information necessary for pars-
ing humanity into races and types (Brinton 1 890).

For Boas, merely using a few measurements or one
index was not enough. More measurements ensured
more reliable classification (Boas 1 899a). A moderate
number of measurements from many members of a
population was more valuable than many measure-
ments from a few "representative" members of a popu-
lation (Boas 1894a, 1895b, 1899b, 1912a). Boas was
also one of the first to see the potential of measure-
ments in studies of human growth and to apply corre-
lations and other statistics to human biological data
(Boas 1892, 1894b, 1895a, 1896, 1897a;Jantz 1995).

By the beginning of the JNPE, however. Boas reached
a turning point in his career as a physical anthropolo-
gist. He briefly adhered to the contemporary physical-
anthropological principle that human "types" — also
called characteristic phenotypes, varieties of mankind,
or races — were mostly fixed. Admixture between two
different human types (as defined by different means
for craniometric or anthropometric measurements) was

2 58

thought to consistently produce intermediate values;
thus, virtually all subpopulations were explained as
mixtures of larger populations or races. Metric infor-
mation, continuous in nature, was to be used to parcel
populations more objectively into discrete categories
or types (Boas 1 899b)

In one of Boas' earliest analyses of anthropometric
measurements from the Northwest Coast tribes (and
his last using measurement means alone), he remarked
on the great number of types (Boas 1 891a). Just two
months later, in a review of the work of another an-
thropologist, he published a very different view of the
anthropometric results of interactions between popu-
lations, based on his own data (Boas 1891b). "Mixed"
populations did not show "blending" effects but, in-
stead, tended to show a bimodal distribution of some
variables, reflecting elements of both parental types.
Boas argued that mixed individuals may show a mea-
surement near the mean of one parent population and
another measurement near the mean of the other par-
ent population. Vastly different types could be found
within one family. These results were discernible only
when one analyzed the distribution of values in a mixed
population rather than just the mean values.

In 1895 Boas analyzed massive amounts of data
from over 60 North American tribes and summarized
data on stature, head length, and head breadth using
plots of over 80 measurement distributions. By now,
his sample sizes had increased enough for a more thor-
ough investigation of the mixing of types. For face
breadth. Boas found evidence for a bimodal distribu-
tion in white-admixed individuals — now referred to as
a major gene effect in quantitative genetics and re-
cently confirmed by population studies in Nepal (Will-
iams-Blangero and Blangero 1989). Boas also found
that the effect did not hold true for all variables; some
showed apparent blending or other unpredictable
phenomena (Boas 1893, 1895b).

Thus, by 1895 Boas had rejected the assumptions
underlying the use of anthropometric data for estimat-
ing population relationships. Anthropometrics would

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

still be the focus of his scientific investigations, but
more for empirically testing physical anthropology's
assumptions than for inductive investigations of popu-
lation relationships (Stocking 1 968). He continued to
collect and publish descriptive summaries of North-
west Coast anthropometric data until 1 899, as part of
his obligation to the BAAS. In an obituary he wrote on
his early mentor Rudolf Virchow, Boas revealed his fu-
ture course, based on his training as a scientist and his
reliance on

the general scientific principle that it is
dangerous to classify data that are imper-
fectly known under the point of view of
general theories, and that the sound progress
of science requires us to be clear at every
moment, what elements in the system of
science are hypothetical and what are the
limits of that knowledge which is obtained
by exact observation. (Boas 1902a:443)

Nearly all of Boas' later work in physical anthropol-
ogy consisted of empirical tests of the effects of
admixture and the environment on anthropometrics
using data from families. Boas' interests moved from
classification and description to the dynamic causes
of human variation (Herskovits 1 943) and from studies
of variation among populations to studies of variation
within subpopulations, groups, or families (Howells
1 959). Boas collected family-based samples from West
Indian Natives, Spaniards, and Mestizos in Puerto Rico
to investigate empirically the effects of mixing popu-
lations (Boas 1 920). His analyses of data collected from
European immigrants to the New World led him to the
widely contested conclusion that environmental fac-
tors could greatly affect supposedly stable types (Boas
1912a, 1916; Stocking 1968). Boas discovered that
the American-born children of recent immigrants
showed changes in several head and face measure-
ments and that the longer the children had been in the
United States, the greater the effect. In other words,
Boas had very strong evidence that human races did
not have definite and unchanging traits. This finding
called into question the very definitions of biological
races and their relationships to each other: A person's

measurements and type could be the result of differ-
ent environmental and biological factors (Boas 1912a,
1913, 1916). Although Boas had clear evidence that
anthropometrics did not always reflect the genetic his-
tory of populations, as other anthropologists had as-
sumed, he still believed in the value of anthropometrics:

It seems to me . . . that our investigations,
like many other previous ones, have merely
demonstrated that results of great value can
be obtained by anthropometrical studies,
and that the anthropometric method is a
most important means of elucidating the
early history of mankind and the effect of
social and geographical environment upon
man. . . . Every result obtained by the use of
anthropometric methods should strengthen
our confidence in the possibility of putting
them to good use for the advancement of
anthropological science. (Boas 1912a:562)

Boas also recognized how high correlations (the
close relationship of measurements to each other) can
confound attempts to distinguish real differences be-
tween peoples. For example, taller people generally
tend to have wider shoulders and larger heads. In
univariate (one variable at a time) analyses, these cor-
relations would not be obvious, and a comparison of
mean values between two populations would make
the differences appear far greater merely because of
size differences. (In multivariate analyses, unavailable
in Boas' time, all variables are analyzed simultaneously,
and correlations are taken into account, allowing the
researcher to investigate differences in both size and
shape.) Boas did have hope for future analyses, how-
ever. After briefly reviewing these problems and allud-
ing to a need for more comprehensive statistical pro-
cedures, he went so far as to write:

I have tried to point out in these remarks a
few directions in which it would seem that
our anthropometrical material may be made
more useful and significant than it is at the
present time. ... I am fully aware of the
difficulties and of the vast amount of labor
involved in carrying out any of the sugges-
tions here outlined, but I fully believe that
any labor devoted to this matter will be
repaid by results interesting from a scientif-
ic point of view . . . and I hope that our

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

259

deliberations may lead to a way of making
the vast amount of anthropometric work
that we are doing more useful in scientific
and practical lines. (Boas ) 902b: 180)

If the multivariate statistical procedures and electronic
computers that enable quantitative genetic analyses
had been available during Boas' lifetime, he might have
returned to assess American Indian population rela-
tionships using anthropometrics.^ Only very recently,
however, have the quantitative genetics of anthropo-
metrics been revalidated, justifying Boas' initial faith in
anthropometric data. Using 12 anthropometric mea-
surements from Boas' data for American Indian fami-
lies, Konigsberg and Ousley (1995) showed that the
phenotypic distances among family members are pro-
portional to their genetic distances. By extension, an-
thropometric data can be expected to reflect larger-
scale genetic relationships among populations, mini-
mally in the same general environment.

Description of Materials

When Boas resigned from the AMNH in 1 905 to teach
at Columbia University, he took the American Indian
anthropometric data sheets with him. They were kept
in his office until 1 942, when, shortly before his death,
he wrote to Harry Shapiro at the AMNH and asked him
to take them (Boas to Shapiro, 16 September 1942,
AMNH-DA). Thereafter, these data sheets remained un-
touched at the AMNH for over 40 years. The neglect
of the anthropometric data was lamented by Stewart
(1973), alerting one of us Qantz) to their existence. A
letterof inquiry to David Thomas, then chairman of the
Department of Anthropology at the AMNH, revealed
that not only were the JNPE anthropometric sheets there,
but so too were nearly all of the other anthropometric
data collected for Boas between 1 890 and 1911. These
records were loaned to the University of Tennessee in
1 984. All data from the sheets except the nonmetric

71/ Location of the Croups Measured during the Jesup Expedition, 1897-1902.

The JNPE groups in the analysis are (1 ) Bella Coola; (2) Carrier; (3) Chilcotin; (4) Chuvan; (5) Maritime Chukchi; (6)
Reindeer Chukchi; (7) Siberian Eskimo; (8) Even; (9) Evenk; (1 0) Haida; (11) Koryak; (1 2) Reindeer Koryak; (1 3)
KwakiutI; (14) Lillooet; (1 5) Makah; (1 6) Okanagan; (1 7) Quileute; (1 8) Tahltan; (1 9) Tenino; (20) Thompson; (2 1 )
Tsimshian; (22) Yukagir. Croups measured at other times are (23) Nivkh; (24) Aleut; (25) MacKenzie Delta
Eskimo. Not shown: Labrador Eskimo.

260

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Table 1

Anthropometric Measurements in the Boas Database

Body measurements

Head measurements

Standing height

Head length (maximum)

Shoulder height (acromial height)

Head breadth (maximum)

Sitting height

Face breadth (bizygomatic breadth)

Finger reach (span of arms)

Nose height (nasion-base of nose)

Finger height (height at end of second finger)

Nose breadth (maximum)

Shoulder breadth (biacromial breadth)

Face height (nasion-menton)

observations were entered into a computer database
between 1 987 and 1 990, a task that required roughly
4,000 man-hours (see Jantz 1 995 for details).

The anthropometric data sheets, which chronicle
the field movements of the various JNPE teams, include
the observer, observation place, and date. The demo-
graphic information from measured individuals includes
tribe, age, sex, occupation, birthplace, tribes of the
mother and father, and number of children; many of
the children were also measured. Admixture in a sub-
ject can be quantified thanks to the meticulous re-
cording of the tribe or admixture of each parent.
Anthroposcopics were collected, including hair color,
form, and distribution; presence of beard and/or mus-
tache; form of eyes, nose, lips, and ears; and skin color
based on color charts. The anthropometric data sheet
used by Boas in North America listed demographic
information and anthroposcopics on the front (fig. 66)
and anthropometrics on the back (fig. 67). Figures 68
and 69 show a Siberian sheet, which has fewer obser-
vational data and more anthropometric measurements
than the North American sheets.

Twelve basic measurements, chosen because they
did not require removal of clothes, were collected from
over 1 8,000 Amerindians and Siberians between 1 890
and 1912. Measurements were recorded to the near-
est millimeter. Six body and six face measurements
(Table 1) were common to all data sheets and have
been entered into the database.

JNPE anthropometric data collection began in late
May 1897 in southern British Columbia, where Boas
personally measured 79 percent (458 out of a total of
582) of the subjects measured in North America. Boas

focused JNPE North American data collection on the
southern Northwest Coast to supplement his earlier
data from those areas. Two other JNPE team members
collected measurements on the Northwest Coast
through 1898. Table 2 shows the number of North
American individuals measured during the JNPE, by sex
and age group. The locations of all groups measured
are shown in Figure 71 .

Table 2

North American Populations Measured forJNPE

Tribe

Sex

Children

Adults

Carrier

Chilcotin

Haida

Hoh

Klamath

KwakiutI

1 1

Lillooet

Okanagan

Queets

Quileute

Quinault

Shuswap

Stalo

Tahltan

Thompson

Tsimshian

Total

1 73

409

Total Amerindians measured forJNPE is 582.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

Table 3

Native Siberian Populations Measured during the JNPE

Tribe

Sex

Children

Adults

Locations

M;iritimp Phiikrhi

1 5

M^riin<ik\/ Pn<;t ("hprhpn

IVICllllMjIxy rWDL, \„MC\_lldl

Reindeer Chukchi

Mariinsky Post, Yeropol

Chuvantsy

Yeropol, Markovo

Sihprian Fsl<imn

Indian Point fMv<; Chanlinn^ Cherhpn

Even

Yeropol, Markovo, Nelemnoye

Reindeer Even

M
p

15
1

Yeropol, Markovo, Kamenskoye

Evenk

Nayakhan, Cizhiga

r a

1 Ul lUI <X L-VCI ll\

M;^ n i ;i k ht ;^ k h

IVICII lldlxl ILClixl 1

k^mrh^H;? 1

rAi \zo. KJi ixi iciyi yu£-\jv\jj _}tucii iivci, cii i\j

Napana

Mpiritimp Knrvak

ivicii iLii 1 It yd fx

193

Ppn7hinpi R;^\/ Nnrthprn K^mrh^^tka

Itll^lllllCl Uay ^ iNUILIIdll INCll 1 Itl ICLL l\Cl

■54

1 4fi

Pp n i n ^ 1 1 1 ^
id III 1 jUid

Rpindppr Korvak

KupI Kamen^kove

1 N w V, 1 , i xcil 1 It 1 u ixw y v_

Russians

0
1

6
4

Mariinsky Post, Tigil

Yakut

Yakutsk, Verkhne Kolymsk

Yukagir

Nelemnoye, Omolon, Maniakhtakh

Total

362

1,252

Note: Total number of JNPE Siberians measured: 1 ,61 4.

a. Includes 30 Evenk females published in Jochelson-Brodsky 1906.

b. Includes 65 Yakut females published in Jochelson-Brodsky 1906.

On the Siberian side of the North Pacific, Berthold
Laufer began work in 1 898 along the Amur River and
on Sakhalin Island and continued through 1 899. Data
collection among more northerly Siberian groups be-
gan in the late summer of 1 900, with Waldemar Bogoras
leading one team and Waldemar Jochelson another.
JNPE members in Siberia reported collecting data from
almost 1 ,900 subjects (Boas 1 903), and we have re-
covered data sheets from 1,614. About 150 records
seem to be missing from the Jochelson and Bogoras
teams, but there are large samples for most groups.
Alexander Axelrod apparently collected the bulk of
anthropometric data in Siberia, measuring over 1 ,1 50
people while traveling with Jochelson's and Bogoras'

teams. Table 3 shows the Siberian groups measured
and the most common locations. Most of the Koryak
are from the region surrounding Penzhina Bay, but there
are also 46 from Palana and Karaga — villages on the
northern Kamchatka Peninsula. Data from 65 Yakut
[Sakha] and 30 Evenk females published by Jochelson-
Brodsky (1906) were not recovered from the AMNH
but have been added to the database and are noted
in Table 3.

The location of Laufer's data sheets — if he actually
did measure any Siberians — remains a mystery. They
are not among his papers at the AMNH or the Field
Museum. In the 1 903 summary of the JNPE, Boas quoted
from a March 4, 1 899, letter from Laufer in which Laufer

2 62 THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

said that the Ainu refused to be measured, in contrast
to Laufer's letter of September 1 8, 1 898, in which he
claimed to have measured over 1 00 individuals. Laufer's
(1 902) Jesup volume concerned only interpretations of
Amur River people's art, and there is no later mention
of his data in Boas' letters. In a July 1 , 1 906, letter to
Boas, however, Laufer wrote of his forthcoming book
on the Amur River peoples and informed Boas that it
would contain sections on physical anthropology, lin-
guistics, and ethnography. This manuscript was ap-
parently never completed or published and has not
been found in Boas' or Laufer's papers (see Krupnik,
this volume). We believe that Laufer did not measure a
significant number of subjects, if any, and that his let-
ter of September 1 8 was referring to Natives he in-
tended to measure but did not.^

Boas' team also collected skulls and made facial
casts, but the sample size is very small. Bogoras re-
ported that he collected 75 skulls, and at least 55 are
in the AMNH, although many of them are incomplete
(Boas 1 903). The North American teams also collected
many skulls, which are especially valuable in combina-
tion with data from skulls at other museums. Bogoras
made 33 plaster facial casts and Jochelson made 41,
according to their reports (Boas 1 903). At least 42
casts from Siberia are in the AMNH (Jaymie Brauer,
AMNH, personal communication). Unfortunately, the
facial casts from Siberia were not cross-referenced to
the anthropometric sheets but merely to ethnic group.
Apparently, the North American teams also made fa-
cial casts; at least 20 anthropometric data sheets from
North America make reference to cast numbers.

Despite some limitations, the anthropometric data
sheets have the greatest potential of all the JNPE bio-
logical information collected because they include a
sufficient number of standardized measurements, de-
mographic data, and measurement locations and be-
cause of the large number of individuals measured.

The "Americanoid" Theory

The JNPE anthropometrics clearly provided Boas with

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

enough biological data to assess relationships in the
North Pacific area. At the conclusion of the JNPE, Boas
stated strongly in several publications that there was
overwhelming evidence for strong biological ties across
the North Pacific:

It seems clear, however, even at this time,
that the isolated tribes of eastern Siberia and
those of the northwest coast of America
form one race, similar in type, and with many
elements of culture in common. (Boas
1903:1 1 5)

and

Comparisons of type, language and culture
make it at once evident that the Northeast
Siberian people are much more closely akin
to the Americans than to other Asiatics.
(Boas 1905:99)

According to Boas, the "Americanoids" of Siberia and
America were also different from the Eskimo, who had
migrated from their original home in central Canada
(Boas 1910:534-35).

Boas' work in British Columbia before the Jesup
Expedition had given him first-hand experience of the
great morphological and linguistic variation in
Amerindians, which undoubtedly influenced his theory
of the peopling of the New World. But even before
that time. Boas' view of Northwest Coast Indians was
probably influenced by an encounter with a group of
Bella Coola [Nuxalk] who were "exhibited" at the Mu-
seum fur Volkerkunde in Berlin and measured by
Virchow. The general public, as well as Virchow, be-
lieved that the Bella Coola resembled Asians, espe-
cially Japanese, more than "typical" Indians (Cole
1985:71-2; Herskovits 1943). In fact, two years be-
fore the Siberian data were collected, Boas concluded:

The types of man which we find on the North
Pacific coast of America, while distinctly
American, show a great affinity to North
Asiatic forms; and the question arises,
whether this affinity is due to mixture, to
migration, or to gradual differentiation. (Boas
1898:6)

Coincidentally, Jochelson also "became convinced that
there were cultural and somatological connections

263

between the Palae-asiatics and the Indians of North
America" Oochelson 1925:2). Boas and Jochelson had
therefore come to the same conclusion, probably from
general impressions, before encountering peoples or
collecting data from the other continent.

Later, the JNPE data suggested to Boas that there
were close cultural and physical relationships across
the North Pacific. Boas felt that the greater variability in
America meant that the peoples of the New World
had to have been there longer (Boas 1 898, 1 903). This
pattern was confirmed by Torroni et al. (1993), who
found greater diversity in the mitochondrial DNA of
American Indian tribes than in Eastern Siberian groups,
and by Ousley (1993, 1995), who found greater an-
thropometric variation in Northwest Coast Indians than
in Siberians measured during the JNPE. But Boas also
had to account for the culturally and morphologically
distinct Eskimo, who separated his "Americanoids" on
each side of the North Pacific.

Boas' "Americanoid" theory neatly explained all of
his JNPE findings through a series of population move-
ments. First, Asians migrated across a land bridge from
Northeast Siberia to North America, where they were
later isolated by glaciers, resulting in the greater diver-
sification of Amerindians. When the glaciers retreated,
the land bridge was reopened, and some Americanoids
migrated back to Northeast Asia, forming an arc of
related tribes across the North Pacific coasts of both
continents. The arc was later broken by Eskimo, who
presumably migrated to the Bering Strait area from
Hudson Bay, forming a "wedge" that divided the
Americanoids on each side of the Bering Strait. A merit
of Boas' theory (outlined in greater detail in Ousley
2000:13-4) was that it explained why the Northeast
Siberians were different from typical "Mongoloids" and
Eskimo yet similar to Northwest Coast Indians in biol-
ogy and culture (Boas 1905, 1907, 1910, 1912b, 1929).

The term "Americanoid" actually originated with
Brinton, who used it in his Essays of an Americanist
(1890) to ridicule anthropologists who believed that
American Indians were part of the "Mongoloid" race.

Brinton believed that if American Indians were consid-
ered Mongoloids, then Asian Mongoloids should be
considered a branch of the "Americanoid" race, since
American Indians are the "purer" race, their hair be-
ing closer to a perfect circle in cross-section (Brinton
1890:62). Boas evidently revived the term in 1904 at
the 14th International Congress of Americanists, held
in Stuttgart, most likely as a sarcastic allusion to Brinton,
who had died in 1899 (Ousley 2000:14).

After the conclusion of the JNPE, Boas had enough
data to disprove Brinton's repeated assertion that
American Indian culture was autochthonous to the New
World, showing no connection to any cultures of the
Old World (Boas 1903:73; Brinton 1886, 1890, 1891,
1 894). Boas never presented specific anthropometric
data that showed similarities between Siberians and
American Indians, but much later he referred obscurely
to cranial similarities between the Siberians and Am-
erican Indians found by Jochelson-Brodsky (Boas
1929:1 12). This is perhaps not surprising: Boas was
attempting to use statistics at a time when one had
to compute them with pencil and paper. A thorough
analysis required many weeks of calculation that would
be unappreciated in the typological environment of
the day, as was the case with Boas' later studies of
heredity (Herskovits 1 953). Jochelson-Brodsky alludes
to this obstacle: "In spite of the critical attitude of the
present days' anthropologists to averages they still
form the chief base for somatological considerations"
(Jochelson-Brodsky n.d.:104). Also, by this time. Boas
was unsure about the use of anthropometrics for as-
sessing population relationships, but for quite different
reasons. Thus, Boas used JNPE ethnographic data to
prove his theory. Waldemar Jochelson did mention spe-
cific resemblances in 1 926, citing the cephalic index
and nose, eye, lip, and cheek form, but without a refer-
ence or data Oochelson 1 926a:93).

Dina Jochelson-Brodsky's (n.d.) manuscript, an analy-
sis of JNPE and Aleutian anthropometric data, was
recently rediscovered among the Jesup Expedition
materials at the AMNH (Ousley 2000). Her manuscript

264

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

conflicts with Boas' and Jochelson's vague references
to it. In this unpublished 1 20-page study, she presented
over 60 tables summarizing the means, standard de-
viations, and distributions of 25 anthropometric mea-
surements and 9 indices from Siberian and American
Indian populations. As in all univariate analyses, some
groups are more similar in some measurements and
different in others, and the choice of which measure-
ments to use is largely subjective. But even her limited
conclusions, based on standing height and the cepha-
lic index, clearly show that Boas' "Americanoid" groups
were not similar to each other and that the Eskimo
were not outliers, but displayed intermediate values.
Jochelson-Brodsky avoided an explicit statement that
these results contradicted Boas' thesis, but it is likely
that Boas recognized that her analysis undermined the
biological basis for the Americanoid theory. Jochelson-
Brodsky's study was never published by Boas as part
of the Jesup Expedition proceedings.

Instead, the only JNPE volume dealing with biologi-
cal data from the expedition was written by Bruno
Oetteking, and it was published in 1930 as the last
volume of the JNPE series.'' Despite samples too small
for reliable results, Oetteking concluded that the North-
west Coast Amerindians were of the "Mongol" stock
and were probably mixed with racially "progressive"
and "superior" early Caucasoids (Oetteking 1 930:376).
Although Boas had progressive views on race and did
not believe in racial superiority, he appears to have
preferred publishing questionable results rather than
directly contradict his Americanoid theory.

Analyses

Boas' Americanoid theory never took hold in physical
anthropology, but the perception of an Eskimo "wedge"
has remained (Freed et al. 1988; Szathmary and
Ossenberg 1978). Debets, a Russian physical anthro-
pologist, noted that the Koryak and Chukchi were
described by Soviet scholars, who compared them
with more typical "Mongoloids" like the Evenk and
Yakut [Sakha], while the North American Eskimo were

described by Americans, who were used to compar-
ing them with American Indians. Thus, for Russians,
Paleoasiatics (the Chukchi, Chuvan, Koryak, and Yukagir)
would seem to have more American Indian features
than other Asians, and to Americans, the Eskimo would
seem to have more "Mongoloid" features than other
American Indians (Debets 1951, cited in Levin 1958
[1 963]). This unfortunate tradition has continued (e.g.,
Laughlin and Harper 1 988; Spuhler 1 979), illustrating a
persistent need for objective data. One exception was
Chard (1951, 1954), who recognized that the Ameri-
canoid theory was based primarily on cultural data
and concluded, along with Russian physical anthro-
pologists, that there was no Eskimo "wedge." Chard's
conclusions, however, were based on comparisons of
only a few measurements and observations. Until the
rediscovery of the JNPE anthropometric data, a reliable
test of Boas' Eskimo wedge and Americanoid theories
was not possible with the available biological data
(Szathmary 1979, 1993).

The debate about the origins of American Indians
continues, although it now centers on the timing and
number of migrations from Asia and whether these
can be delineated (Crawford 1998; Greenberg et al.
1 986; Merriwetheretal. 1 995; Ousley 1 995; Szathmary
1993; Szathmary and Ossenberg 1978; Torroni et al.
1992, 1993). Genetic analyses have illustrated some
general patterns of ancestral relationships, but many
questions remain. Traditional blood markers are of lim-
ited use because data from at least 20 marker loci, the
minimum number necessary for consistent estimations
of population relationships, are still scarce for North
Pacific groups (Szathmary 1993). Other methods for
further analyzing nuclear DNA show some promise but
are limited by small sample sizes at present.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been extensively
utilized recently for assessing ancestral population re-
lationships across the North Pacific. Different mtDNA
analyses have been used to establish one, two, three,
four, and more migratory "waves" into the New World.
Based on mtDNA diversity, these waves are estimated

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

265

to have arrived in the New World between 5,000 and
40,000 years ago. However, the conclusions of many
early mtDNA researchers overreached what was sup-
ported by the sample sizes. With larger sample sizes,
more mtDNA types and subtypes are being discov-
ered, and more complicated patterns of population
composition, interactions, and migrations into the New
World become evident (IVIerriwether et al. 1 995, 1 996;
Schurr et al. 1999; Ward et al. 1993). Some groups
probably migrated to the New World with a great deal
of mtDNA diversity already present, confounding at-
tempts to count or date the "waves" of migration. One
study found tremendous mtDNA diversity within the
Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka] that was estimated to have
taken 60,000 years to produce (Ward et al. 1991). In
fact, the mtDNA sequence diversity of this one tribe
had 62 percent of the diversity present in numerous
sampled groups from Sub-Saharan Africa. On the other
hand. Northwest Coast groups are known to have
engaged in raids on distant villages, sometimes hun-
dreds of miles away, for wife and slave capture (Drucker
1955; Suttles 1987). The incorporation of mtDNA lin-
eages from other tribes would increase the mtDNA
diversity and estimated time depth within a tribe (Ousley
1 993). In addition, mtDNA sites that show apparent
great time depth can be the result of higher mutation
rates for certain sites (Curven 2000). There is also con-
siderable debate about whether American Indians went
through a population bottleneck and which American
Indian mtDNA lineages originated in the Americas as
opposed to Asia. As has been pointed out, however,
mtDNA data represent the genetic history of only one
maternally inherited locus and may not reflect the his-
tory of populations (Szathmary 1 993). The mtDNA data
may be better suited for detecting and discriminating
ancient and recent contributions to genetic variation
within populations than for assessing overall popula-
tion relationships.

The genetic relationships between American Indi-
ans and Siberians are not well defined, either, with some
research pointing to Mongolian, Central Siberian, and

even early European ancestors who may have migrated
to the New World before the peopling of northeastern
Siberia (Brown et al. 1 998; Crawford 1 998; Merriwether
et al. 1 996; Santos et al. 1 999). Investigations of the Y
chromosome will provide additional data for research-
ing population origins, but some mtDNA and Y-chro-
mosome results conflict with each other, perhaps re-
flecting different migration patterns for each sex (Karafet
et al. 1997, 1999).

Because of the lack of comprehensive biological
data from the North Pacific, many researchers have
only presented general physical and cultural impres-
sions, and physical anthropologists have merely cho-
sen the analysis closest to their own results for sup-
port (e.g., Harper and Laughlin 1982; Laughlin and
Harper 1988; see Levin 1958 [1963] for many more
examples). Recent statistical developments allow more
informative and objective comparisons among popu-
lations based on metric data, which enable reconstruc-
tions of population histories (Konigsberg and Blangero
1993; Konigsberg and Ousley 1995; Relethford and
Blangero 1 990; Williams-Blangero et al. 1 992). For ex-
ample, Relethford and Crawford (1995) analyzed Irish
anthropometrics collected in the 1 930s and discov-
ered evidence for Viking invasions and gene flow that
had occurred over 1 ,000 years earlier.

The JNPE data therefore offer a unique resource for
addressing some of these questions. The first analysis
of all JNPE anthropometric data was carried out only
recently, almost 100 years after the JNPE (Ousley
1993) — fortunately, at a time when electronic com-
puters are available to perform statistical procedures.
Ousley combined JNPE data with data from many other
groups measured under Boas and also produced the
first multivariate analysis of Siberian anthropometric
data in English. Table 4 shows the mean cranial index
(CI) values for North Pacific samples, with sexes com-
bined. The Eskimo CIs are generally low but are close
to those of many Siberians. A few Northwest Coast
groups are near Siberian values, but generally they have
the highest CIs. Very similar CIs are found in Jochelson-

266

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Table 4

Cephalic Index (CI) of JNPE Samples'

Tribe

Number

Mean CI

EskMak

76.6

Evenk-SW

79.1

Chuvantsy

79.4

EskLab

79.4

NPBKory

79.5

WPBKory

1 23

80.0

Yukagir

80.0

EskSib

80.0

Eve-NE

80.1

ReinKory

80.8

Okanagan

80.9

KwakiutI

81.1

Eve-NW

81.1

MariChuk

81.5

Tahltan

1 7

81.7

Yakut

81.9

Haida

82.1

ReinChuk

82.1

Nivkh

1 6

82.5

Thompson

142

82.7

Tsimshian

83.0

Carrier

83.3

Bella Coola

84.0

Navajo

84.4

Aleut

85.2

Chilcotin

85.8

Lillooet

86.1

Makah

86.3

Tenino

89.5

Quileute

90.4

Note: See endnote 5 for abbreviations

Brodsky's work (1 906, n.d.). Clearly, Boas andjochelson
overstated similarities in the cephalic index and ignored
the position of Eskimo samples (Ousley 2000).

Multivariate Analysis of Siberians
More reliable population comparisons involve all vari-
ables. Multivariate statistical methods, not practiced
in Boas' time, enable comparisons between popula-
tions using all available measurements simultaneously;
they also express overall similarity between any two
groups by one number and permit the graphic repre-
sentation of overall relationships. These overall rela-
tionships can be used to objectively assess the gen-
eral impressions of a researcher. For example. Hall and

MacNair (1 972), in a multivariate analysis of Boas' pub-
lished Northwest Coast anthropometric data, confirmed
Boas' impressions of greater similarity of the Thomp-
son [NIaka'pamux], Lillooet [Stl'atrimx], Chilcotin
[Tsilhart'in], and Shuswap [Secwepemc] tribes to each
other than to other groups (Boas 1 899c). Likewise,
Boas's impression of three biological types of North-
west Coast Amerindians (Boas 1 899c) was supported
by an analysis of additional groups (Ousley 1 993).

A computer capable of running statistical software
such as SAS (SAS Institute 1 985) that performs canoni-
cal discriminant analysis (CDA) would have also served
Boas well. CDA converts the information expressed by
many quantitative variables into fewer uncorrelated
variables, called the canonical axis scores, which maxi-
mize among-group variation and take into account
the correlations among variables. Relationships among
groups can be illustrated by plotting the group means
for two or three canonical axes, with some loss of
information.

Anthropometric data from Siberian and Aleutian
males and females between ages 20 and 60 were
standardized by sex and pooled by ethnic group and
location. The results of canonical discriminant analysis
of this sample are shown in Figure 72. Groups that
score high on the first canonical axis have relatively
longer legs, shorter arms, larger faces, larger noses, and
wider heads than those on the left of Figure 72. On the
second canonical axis, groups in the upper half are
shorter, with narrower shoulders, longer heads, and nar-
rower noses than those below. In this case, the two
axes represent 52 percent of all information from the
measurements. The relationships among groups using
all available information are expressed as distances
from each group to all others and can be illustrated as
a dendrogram, or "tree" diagram. A dendrogram dis-
playing all the information from Siberians was con-
structed via this method (Fig. 73).

The anthropometric variation among the Siberian
groups shows very strong geographic patterning, in-
dependent of language and ethnicity as assessed by

S, OUSLEY AND R, JANTZ

267

Jochelson and Bogoras. The
Chukchi groups and the Sibe-
rian Eskimo [Yupik] who live
on the Chukchi Peninsula clus-
ter at the bottom right of Fig-
ure 72. All three trade with
each other and intermarry,
and Maritime Chukchi and
Yupik (Siberian Eskimo) often
live adjacently. According to
historical accounts, the Mari-
time Chukchi have been
slowly assimilating the Sibe-
rian Eskimo (Menovshchikov
1 964), a fact well illustrated
by the anthropometrics. When
all variation is taken into ac-
count, using all distances, the
Maritime Chukchi are slightly
closertothe Reindeer Chukchi
than to the Siberian Eskimo,
as shown in Figure 73.

The cluster at the bottom
left of Figure 72 is from the
Kamchatka Peninsula, which

0,5

flj
O

-0.5

-1

-1.5

EVENK-SW

▲

YUKAGHIR
▲

CHUVANTSevenK-NE

EVENK-NW

EVEN -NW ^

EVEN -NE REINKORY

^ YAKUT

▲

VvrDr\Ui\T i^rurwrvi

NIVKH

▲

KAMKORY

▲

^ RUSSIAN

REINCHUK
A

KAWICHADAL

▲

ESKSIB
MARICHUK

ALEUT

▲

CREOLE A

-1.5

-0.5 0
Can 1 (43%)

0.5

1.5

72/ Canonical Discriminant Analysis of all JNPE Siberians measured and 27 Aleuts
and 1 6 "Creoles" (Aleut mixtures) measued by Jochelson-Brodsky on the Ribushinski
Expedition. Abbreviations are: EskSib, Siberian Eskimo; Even-NE, Even from
Yeropol, Markovo; Evenk-NE, Evenk from Kamenskoye, Markovo; Even-NW,
Even from the lower Kolyma River and Nelemnoye; Evenk-NW, Evenk from the
lower Kolyma and Nelemnoye; Evenk-SW, Evenk from Nayakhan and Gizhiga;
KamKory, Koryak from Kamchatka (Palana and Sedanka); MariChuk, Maritime
Chukchi; NPBKory, Koryak from northern Penzhina Bay (Kamenskoye and
Talovka); ReinChuk, Reindeer Chukchi; ReinKory, Reindeer Koryak; WPBKory,
Koryak from the west coast of Penzhina Bay (Kuel, Itkana, Paren River).

is also separated from other

Siberians in Figure 73. The Kamchatka cluster includes
the Koryak from Kamchatka (Palantsy and Karagintsy),
the Kamchadal [Itelmen] who are mixed with Russians,
and the Kamchatkan Russians. This cluster reflects docu-
mented gene flow between all three. In the 1 8th cen-
tury, the Kamchadal were distributed more northward,
overlapping with the Koryak (Antropova 1 964). At the
time of the JNPE, the Kamchadal and Koryak of the
Kamchatka Peninsula had been intermarrying with the
Russians for nearly 200 years (Jochelson 1 908). Nearly
all Kamchatkan natives measured had Russian names.
The Koryak from other areas are very different from the
Kamchatka Koryak, clustering in the upper right of Fig-
ure 72. The Aleut and the "Creoles" (Aleut mixed with
Europeans, especially Russians) plot near the Kamchatka

cluster, but Figure 73 confirms that they, along with
the Nivkh, are very different from other Siberians.

The groups measured in the northwestern area of
the JNPE in Siberia similarly cluster with each other in
the top left of Figure 72, along with the Evenk mea-
sured in the Nayakhan and Korkodon River area. This is
probably the result of gene flow between all groups.
The Even, believed to stem from the relatively recent
assimilation of Yukagir, Koryak, and other elements by
northeastern Evenk (Arutiunov 1988a), can be sepa-
rated into eastern and western subdivisions, each show-
ing affinity to the groups geographically near them.
The Even of the northwest area cluster with the Yukagir,
Yakut [Sakha], and Evenk in the same area, while the
Even of the Markovo area are similar to the Chuvantsy

2 68 THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

[Chuvan], Koryak, and Evenk in that area. The two divi-
sions of the Even are also widely separated in the den-
drogram (Fig. 73).

The cluster at the top right of Figure 72 represents
groups from the Yeropol-Markovo area, as well as all
Koryak from the vicinity of Penzhina Bay. The Koryak
north of Kamchatka show greater biological cohesive-
ness than other Siberians. This probably represents a
larger range of movement and interaction among
Koryak groups north of Kamchatka. As shown in Fig-
ure 73, the Penzhina Bay Koryak are most similar to the
northern Koryak, followed by the Reindeer Koryak. The
Chuvantsy [Chuvan] were described as a Yukagir-speak-
ing tribe (Bogoras 1 904-09), but Jochelson remarked
that the Chuvantsy in Siberia were either Russianized
or were influenced by the Koryak or Chukchi (Jochelson
1926b). At the time of the JNPE, the Chuvantsy were
surrounded by Reindeer Chukchi to the north and Re-
indeer Koryak to the south. The documented ethno-
graphic relationships of the Chuvantsy are reflected
anthropometrically, for the Chuvantsy are most similar
to the northeastern Even, Evenk, and Koryak groups.

The Siberian anthropometric relationships largely
reflect a recurrent pattern seen in Siberia and other
parts of the world: groups located close to each other

exchange genes, whether the admixture results from
trade, warfare, or migration (Arutiunov 1 988a; Bogoras
1904-09; Dikov 1965; Dolgikh 1965; Harding and
Sokal 1988; Jochelson 1908; Moss 1992; Townsend
1979). Linguistic barriers are rarely genetic barriers.
Geographic barriers are often more formidable, but the
strong geographic patterning of the Siberian anthro-
pometric data may also be a product of strong envi-
ronmental influences. Northern populations, however,
have come up with clever cultural adaptations to a
severe environment, and gene flow likely affects
groups far more than does natural selection in the
relatively short term, barring mass extinction. Indeed,
all types of biological data (anthropometrics, der-
matoglyphics, blood markers, mtDNA, Y chromosome,
etc.) should be subjected to Boasian skepticism, and
the strengths and weaknesses of each should be ac-
knowledged. This, however, is rarely done. For example,
in a recent test of assumptions, Ousley (1997) found
that unlike the case with anthropometrics, the pheno-
typic distances among family members using der-
matoglyphic ridge counts are not proportional to the
genetic distances, meaning that population relation-
ships estimated directly from dermatoglyphic ridge
counts will be inaccurate.

-cz

Aleut

Creole

Nivkh

Chuvants

Evenk-NE

Even-NE

WPBKoryak

NPBKoryak

ReinKory

MariChuk

RelnChuk

EskSib

Evenk

Evenk-NW

Yukaghir

Even-NW

Yakut

Itelman

KamKory

Russian

73/ Dendrogram of Siberian and Aleut Samples. For abbreviations, see Fig. 72.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

269

Multivariate Analysis of North Pacific Croups
Figure 74 is a canonical plot of relationships among
North Pacific groups for which Boas had data. The re-
sults are similar to those from other studies with more
groups (Ousley 1993, 1995). Most groups in the left
half of Figure 74 are Siberians, with the exception of
the Eskimo samples. The upper-left quadrant of the
figure shows a clustering of northeasternmost Siberian
groups— the Koryak, Chukchi, and Siberian Eskimo—
as well as Eskimo from Labrador and the MacKenzie
River Delta in northern Canada. The bottom-left quad-
rant contains the other Siberian groups. American Indi-
ans and the Aleut are on the right, as are the Nivkh.
This separation of Old and New World populations is
also shown in Figure 75, a dendrogram that uses the
same population samples as in Figure 74. Most North-
west Coast Amerindians are clustered in the upper half
of Figure 74, while the KwakiutI, Aleut, and Bella Coola
are nearer the bottom. The groups are also separated
in Figure 75, in which the Tahltan are close to the
KwakiutI, Aleut, and Bella Coola. The division of coastal
North Pacific groups into these clusters is supported,
as well, when other statisti-
cal methods and groups are
used (Boas 1 899c; Ousley
1993, 1995).

These results call Boas'
theories into question, given
the absence of American-
oids and the close anthro-
pometric relationship of the
Eskimo to other North Pa-
cific populations. Only the
Nivkh sample, which Boas
apparently never analyzed,
shows great affinity to
Northwest Coast Amer-
indians. Both North Ameri-
can Eskimo groups show
unquestionable Siberian af-
finities; in particular, the

Labrador Eskimo sample is most similar to the Mari-
time Koryak. Thus, there is no Eskimo "wedge." The
anthropometric affinities of the Eskimo samples sug-
gest an Asian origin, as have more recent archaeologi-
cal and ethnographic studies (summarized in Ousley
1995), rather than one in central Canada, as Boas had
supposed. Another analysis (Yokota et al. n.d.), using
several sets of biological data, finds that most of the
Siberian groups from the JNPE are more similar to the
Eskimo than to other Asian populations, including the
Chinese. On the whole, the data are in agreement with
Chard's (1960) suggestion that Eskimo populations,
which at one time stretched from Kamchatka to the
Bering Strait or beyond, may have been the carriers of
Asiatic cultural elements into the New World.

Not all of Boas's impressions were incorrect. Ousley
(1 993), in a larger-scale analysis, found that Northwest
Coast tribes are more similar to Siberians than are other
Amerindian tribes. The Eskimo show unquestionable
Asian affinities, while the Aleut show strong New World
affinities, reflecting ethnohistorical data rather than
linguistic relationships. This illustrates Boas' (1911)

0.5

-0 5

-15

CARRIER

MARICHUK

▲

NAVAJO

▲

ESKSIB

▲ REINCHUK

TENINO

▲

CHILCOTIN ^

REINKORY

A ESKMAK

NPBKORY

THOMPSON

EVEN-NE WPBKORY

A ▲

TAHLTAN

^ LILLOOET

A A

ESKLAB

OKANAGAN

▲

aTSIMSHIAN

CHUVANTS
▲

KWAKIUTL

HAIDA MAKAH

NIVKH

quileute a

EVENK-SW

^ EVE-NW

ALEUT

▲

YUKAGHIR A

YAKUT BELLA COOLA

▲

-2 5

Can 1 (42%)

2.5

74/ North Pacific Canonical Plot. Except for Evenk-SW, the Even and Evenk
samples were pooled according to region (Eve-NW, Eve-NE). For other abbre-
viations, see Fig. 72

270

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Aleut

KwakiutI

Bella Coola

Tahltan

Chllcotin

Lillooet

Thompson

Tenino

Makah

Quileute

Haida

Tsimshian

Okanagan

Nivkh

Navajo

Carrier

Chuvants

Evenk-SW

Even-NW

Yukaghir

Yakut

EskLab

Even-NE

WPBKoryak

NPBKoryak

ReinKoryak

EskSib

MariChuk

ReinChuk

EskMak

75/ Dendrogram of North Pacific Populations. For abbreviations, see Figs. 74 and 72.

assertion that anthropological results based on biol-
ogy, culture, and language need not agree. Boas'
(1 91 2a, 1916) results from immigrants indicating mor-
phological changes in head shape after migration to
the New World may temper the results of inter-
continental population comparisons. The extent of
morphological changes after migration and their
effect on estimated population relationships are
uncertain. A reanalysis of Boas' immigrant data, how-
ever, indicates that age-related variability is a much
more significant influence on the morphological
changes that Boas observed than is the environment
(Corey Sparks, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, per-
sonal communication).

In addition, anthropometric data, like other biologi-
cal data gathered from modern individuals, may re-
flect historically recent rather than ancient population
events. There are major drawbacks in examining mod-
ern populations to ascertain what happened 5,000-
1 5,000 years ago. Modern native populations are the

result not only of ancient migrations but also of subse-
quent and continuous gene drift, gene flow, founder
effects, ethnogenesis, in- and out-migrations, warfare,
epidemics, extinctions, admixture, assimilation, and
perhaps natural selection. The addition of ancient DNA
analyses may help in providing data at various points
in time, but technical challenges, limited samples, high
costs, and repatriation concerns remain formidable.

There are many ways of utilizing the JNPE anthro-
pometric data, some of which do not involve estimat-
ing ancestral population relationships. Of course, the
similarities among groups from opposite sides of the
North Pacific can be explored in greater detail, and the
spatial patterning seen in Siberia can be investigated
further using more sophisticated methods and addi-
tional measurements collected only in Siberia. The stat-
ure of Siberian adults and the growth of Siberian chil-
dren at the time of the JNPE can be compared with
these data for modern Siberians. Furthermore, morpho-
logical changes among Siberian adults since the JNPE

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 7 1

can be investigated using modern data sets. For ex-
ample, Comuzzie et al. (1995) reported dramatic re-
ductions in Evenk facial measurements since the JNPE.

Summary

JNPE biological data, collected under Boas' direction,
reflected his faith in the analytical value of
anthropometrics as part of holistic anthropological field-
work, in contrast to Brinton's "armchair" anthropology.
In geographic range, quality, and extent of data, the
JNPE produced an unsurpassed amount of biological
information about North Pacific peoples. Initial studies
of the data contradicted Boas' Americanoid theory,
which was based almost entirely on cultural similari-
ties. Until recently, however, the JNPE anthropometric
data had never been adequately analyzed to explore
the biological relationships of peoples on both sides
of the Bering Strait, as Boas had intended. Paradoxi-
cally, although Boas never analyzed the biological data
from the JNPE, a rejection of his Americanoid theory is
possible only because he insisted that such metric data
be collected.

Boas' foresight in amassing quantitative biological
data (despite doubts of their immediate utility) has given
us extremely valuable biological records. These enable
us to perform analyses that shed light on ancient and
recent relationships, growth, and morphological
changes over time. We should acknowledge the con-
tributions of Franz Boas as we would an expert pho-
tographer who captured a moment in time. Under his
direction, over 18,000 American Indians and Siberians
were measured. He was indeed prescient: many of the
populations measured by his teams have disappeared
through dispersion and assimilation.

The rediscovery of Boas's anthropometric data has
coincided with the availability of much greater statisti-
cal and computational capabilities for analyzing them.
Much more reliable biological information can be
gleaned from all types of biological data, especially in
the North Pacific, where important questions linger as
to ancient migrations and more recent gene flow. While

there are fewer computational limitations on analyses
today, there are greater challenges for data collection.
The authors hope that all varieties of biological data
will be collected as part of any North Pacific research
project in order to assess modern population relation-
ships, to compare the new data with other informa-
tion collected over the last 100 years, and to investi-
gate changes in growth and body form since the JNPE.

Acknowledgments

The late Douglas Cole commented on sections of this
paper and provided important references. Regna Darnell
provided information about D. G. Brinton and his rela-
tionship to Boas. Both Regna Darnell and George Stock-
ing, Jr., commented on earlier versions of this paper
and a similar publication. Jaymie Brauer, Belinda Kaye,
Barbara Mathe, and Thomas Miller at the AMNH were
very helpful in assembling the Boas records and find-
ing additional Jesup Expedition materials. At the
Smithsonian Institution, Igor Krupnik provided valuable
editorial comments and assistance in locating Siberian
ethnic names and Russian place names. Daniel Meyer
at the Regenstein Library Archives of the University of
Chicago provided much-needed assistance.

Notes

1. The contrast between inductive and de-
ductive logic and reasoning does not adequately
describe the differences between Boas' and
Brinton's research methods. The conclusion of a
deductive argument is claimed to follow neces-
sarily from the premises. If the premises of a de-
ductive argument are true and the argument is
valid (the conclusion follows from the premises),
then the conclusion must be true no matter what
other information is added (Copi 1982). Brinton
constructed deductive arguments by assembling
published observations that supported a foregone
conclusion, such as the psychic unity of mankind
or the unique nature of American Indian culture,
and ignoring any observations and explanations
to the contrary. This deductive approach limited
what data were relevant, for they were being gath-
ered for a specific purpose.

272

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

By contrast, Boas' approach was inductive
because he was concerned with gathering as
many data as possible; the data were not par-
ticularly constrained by conclusions or theory. In-
ductive reasoning involves probabilistic state-
ments, and the probabilities can change as new
information is added. Inductive reasoning gener-
ally involves analogies, generalizations, and causal
connections (Copi 1982).

As a result of their different approaches. Boas
made more numerous and far greater enduring con-
tributions to anthropology. Brinton's legacy is one
of pompous and flowery writing, full of conclu-
sions that sound well founded but have over-
whelmingly proved false, untestable, or irrelevant.
Boas, by contrast, generally avoided theorizing
(with the notable exception of the "Americanoid"
theory), and some have interpreted this as a weak-
ness. Boas, however, left behind cautious explo-
rations of data in his publications, numerous col-
lected items of material culture, and mountains
of archived data that others can use even today
to test theories. The JNPE is a microcosm of Boas'
career in that great amounts of data were col-
lected but no comprehensive results and conclu-
sions were published.

2. An invoice was found among Boas' pro-
fessional correspondence for "computers" — of the
human variety — to calculate statistics from his bio-
logical data.

3. This was Boas' second setback for anthro-
pometric data collection in the Amur River area.
In 1893, he had sent D. Scott Moncrieff, an expe-
rienced measurer who had worked in British Co-
lumbia, to the Amur River to gather data for an
exhibit at the World's Columbian Exposition.
Shortly after his arrival, Moncrieff drowned while
testing a native boat Qohnson 1897).

4. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky's study was ad-
vertised on the cover page of the Oetteking vol-
ume as Part 2 of that volume, although her contri-
bution was never published — ed.

5. For data in Table 4, order is from lowest
to highest SI. Males and females were combined.
Except for Evenk-SW, the Even and Evenk samples
were pooled according to region. Abbreviations:
EskLab, Labrador Eskimo; EskMak, MacKenzie
Delta Eskimo; EskSib, Siberian Eskimo; Eve-NE, Even
and Evenk from the northeastern area of the JNPE;

Eve-NW, Even and Evenk from the northwestern
area of the JNPE; Evenk-SW, Evenk from Nayakhan
and Gizhiga; MariChuk, Maritime Chukchi; NPBKory,
Koryak from northern Penzhina Bay (Kamenskoye
and Talovka); ReinChuk, Reindeer Chukchi; Rein-
Kory, Reindeer Koryak; WPBKory, Koryak from
western Penzhina Bay (Kuel, Itkana, Paren River).

6. Although language is not necessarily a bar-
rier to gene flow, dialects can reflect social inter-
actions. The Koryak of northeastern Kamchatka
speak Aliutor, a distinctive dialect of Koryak, if
not a separate language (Krauss 1988). The
Kamchadal samples are from the western linguis-
tic branch, which includes dialects greatly influ-
enced by Koryak and Russian (Antropova 1964a;
Arutiunov 1 988b).

References
Antropova, Valentina V.

1964 The Itelmen. In The Peoples of Siberia. M. C.

Levin and L. P. Potapov, eds. Pp. 876-83. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.
Arutiunov, Sergei A.

1988a Even: Reindeer Herders of Eastern Siberia. In
Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and
Alaska. William Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp.
35-8. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1 988b Koryak and Itelman: Dwellers of the Smoking
Coast. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Sibe-
ria and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,
eds. Pp. 31-5. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press.

Boas, Franz

1891a Physical Characteristics of the Indians of the
North Pacific Coast. American Anthropologist 4:25-
32.

1891b Mixed Races. Science 17:179.

1892 The Growth of Children. Sc/e^ce 1 9:256-7, 281-
2; 20:351-2.

1 893 Remarks on the Theory of Anthropometry. Quar-
terly Publications of the American Statistical Asso-
ciation 3:569-75.

1 894a The Correlation of Anatomical or Physiological
Measurements. American Anthropologist 7:31 3-24.

1894b The Half-Blood Indian: An Anthropometric
Study. Popular Science Monthly 45:761-70.

1 895a The Growth of First-Born Children. Science, n.s.
1 :402-4.

1895b Zur Antropologie der nordamerikanischen
Indianern. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 27:366-41 1 .

1 896 Form of the Head as Influenced by Growth.
Science, n.s. 4:50-1 .

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 73

1897a The Growth of Children. Science, n.s. 5:570-3.

1 897b The Jesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast.
Science, n.s. 6:535-8.

1 898 Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern British
Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1 ,
pt. 1 , pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Museum
of Natural History, 2. New York.

1 899a The Cephalic Index. American Anthropologist,
n.s. 1:448-61.

1 899b Some Recent Criticisms of Physical Anthropol-
ogy. American Anthropologist 1:98-106.

1899c Summary of the Work of the Committee in
British Columbia. 68th Report of the British Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science. Pp. 667-88.

1902a Rudolf Virchow's Anthropological Work. Sci-
ence 16:441-5.

1 902b Statistical Study of Anthropometry. American
Physical Education Review 6:174-80.

1 903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American
Museum Journal 3(5):73-l 1 9.

1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-
tional Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Held
in New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:
Eschenbach.

1 907 Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History 15, pts.
1-2.

1910 Ethnological Problems in Canada. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 40:529-39.

1911 Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Lan-
guages. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
40(1): 1-83. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.

1 91 2a Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of
Immigrants. American Anthropologist 1 4(3):530-62.

1 91 2b The History of the American Race. Annals of
the American Academy of Sciences 21:1 77-83.

1913 Die Analyse anthropometrischer Serien, nebst
Bemerkungen iiber die Deutung der Instabilitat
menschlicher Typen. Archiv fur Rassen- und
Cesellschafts-Biologie 1 0(3):290-302.

1916 New Evidence in Regard to the Instability of
Human Types. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences 2(1 2): 71 3-8.

1 920 Anthropometry of Puerto Rico. American Jour-
nal of Physical Anthropology 3:247-53.

1 929 Migrations of Asiatic Races and Cultures to North
America. Scientific Monthly 29:1 10-21 .

Bogoras, Waldemar

1 904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the American
Museum of Natural History, 1 1 . Leiden: E.J. Brill; New
York: G. E. Stechert.

Brinton, Daniel C.

1886 Anthropology and Ethnology. Philadelphia:
Sonographic Publishing.

1890 Essays of an Americanist. Philadelphia: Porter
and Coates.

1891 The American Race. New York: Hodges.

1 894 On Various Supposed Relations between the
American and Asian races. In Memoirs of the Interna-
tional Congress of Anthropology. C. Staniland Wake,
ed. Pp. 145-51. Chicago: Schulte.

1 895 The Character and Aims of a Scientific investiga-
tion. Science, n.s. 1:3-4.

Brown, M. D., S. H. Hosseini, A. Torroni, H.

Bandelt, J. C. Allen, T. C. Schurr, R. Scozzari,

F. Cruciani, and D. C. Wallace

1 998 mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between
Europe/Western Asia and North America? American
Journal of Human Genetics 63:1 852-6 1 .

Chard, Chester S.

1 95 1 New Light on the Racial Composition of North-
eastern Siberia. Kroeber Anthropological Society
Papers 5:26^7.

1954 Racial Types in Northeastern Asia. Kroeber An-
thropological Society Papers 10:1-4.

1960 Northwest Coast-Northeast Asiatic Similarities:
A New Hypothesis. In Men and Cultures: Selected
Papers of the Fifth International Congress of An-
thropological and Ethnological Sciences, 1956. An-
thony F. C. Wallace, ed. Pp. 235^0. Philadelphia:
University of Philadelphia Press.

Cole, Douglas L.

1 985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest
Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.

Comuzzie, A. C, R. Duggirala, W. R. Leonard,
and M. H. Crawford

1995 Population Relationships among Historical
and Modern Indigenous Siberians based on An-
thropometric Characters. Human Biology
67(3):459-79.

Copi, Irving M.

1 982 Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan.
Crawford, Michael H.

1 998 The Origins of Native Americans: Evidence from
Anthropological Genetics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Debets, Georgii F.

1 95 1 Antropologicheskie issledovaniia na Kamchatke
(Anthropological research in Kamchatka). Trudy
Instituta etnografii AN SSSR, 1 7. Moscow.

Dikov, Nikolai N.

1965 The Stone Age of Kamchatka and the Chukchi
Peninsula in the Light of New Archaeological Data.
Arctic Anthropology 3:10-25.

274

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Dolgikh, Boris O.

1 965Problems in the Ethnography and Physical Anthro-
pology of the Arctic. Arctic Anthropology. 3(1): 1-9.
Drucker, Philip

1955 Indians of the Northwest Coast. New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila
Williamson

1 988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-
aries: Thejesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902).
American Anthropologist 90(1): 7-24.

Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner, and

Stephen L. Zegura

1 986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison
of the Linguistic, Dental, and Genetic Evidence. Cur-
rent Anthropology 27{S)A77-97.

Gurven, M.

2000 How Can We Distinguish between Mutational
"Hot Spots" and "Old Sites" in Human mtDNA
Samples? Human Biology 72:455-71.

Hall, Roberta, and P. MacNair

1 972 Multivariate Analysis of Anthropometric Data
and Classification of British Columbia Natives. Ameri-
can Journal of Physical Anthropology 37:401-10.

Harding, R. M., and R. R. Sokal

1 988 Classification of the European Language Fami-
lies by Genetic Distance. Science 85:9370-2.

Harper, Albert B., and William S. Laughlin

1982 Inquiries into the Peopling of the New World:
Development of Ideas and Recent Advances. In A
History of American Physical Anthropology 1 930-
1980. F. Spencer, ed. Pp. 281-304. New York: Aca-
demic Press.

Herskovits, Melville J.

1 943 Franz Boas as Physical Anthropologist. Memoirs
of the American Anthropological Association, 6 1 .
Pp. 39-5 1 .

1 953 Franz Boas: The Science of Man in the Making.

New York: Scribner.
Howells, W. W.

1959 Boas as Statistician. Memoirs of the American

Anthropological Association, 89. Pp. 1 1 2-6.
Jantz, Richard L.

1 995 Franz Boas and Native American Biological Vari-
ability. Human Biology 67{3y.34S-53.
Jantz, Richard L., David R. Hunt, Anthony B.
Falsetti, and Patrick J. Key

1992 Variation among North Amerindians: Analysis
of Boas's Anthropometric Data. Human Biology
64(3):435-61.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1 908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,
vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Museum
of Natural History, 1 0. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G.

E. Stechert.

1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian
Islands. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publica-
tion, 367. Washington, DC.

1 926a The Ethnological Problems of Bering Sea. Natu-
ral History 26{]y.90-S.

1 926b The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. The
Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3. Mem-
oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 1 3.
Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Jochelson-Brodsky, Dina

1906 Zur Topographie des weiblichen Korpers nord-
ostsibirisher Volker. Archiv fur Anthropologie 33:1-
58.

1907 K antropologii zhenshchin plemion krainego
severo-vostoka Sibiri (Contribution to the anthropol-
ogy of the women of the tribes of northeastern Si-
beria). Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal 1-2:1-87.
Moscow.

n.d. [On the Anthropometry of the Peoples of North-
east Siberia.] On file at the Department of Anthro-
pology, American Museum of Natural History, New
York.

Johnson, Rossiter

1 897 A History of the World's Columbian Exposition
Held in Chicago in 1893. New York: Appleton.

Karafet, Tatiana, Stephen L. Zegura, Jennifer

Vuturo-Brady, Olga Posukh, Ludmila Osipova,

Victor Wiebe, Francine Romero, Jeffrey C.

Long, Shinji Harihara, Feng Jin, Bumbein

Dashnyam, Tudevdagva Gerelsaikhan, Keiichi

Omoto, and Michael F. Hammer

1 997 Y Chromosome Markers and Trans-Bering Strait
Dispersals. American Journal of Physical Anthropol-
ogy 102(3):301-14.

Karafet, T. M., S. L. Zegura, O. Posukh, L.

Osipova, A. Bergen, J. Long, D. Goldman, W.

Klitz, S. Harihara, P. de Knijff, V. Wiebe, R. C.

Griffiths, A. R. Templeton, and M. F. Hammer

1 999 Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-Chro-
mosome Founder Haplotypes. American Journal of
Human Genetics 64(3, March):81 7-31 .

Konigsberg, L. W., and J. Blangero

1 993 Multivariate Quantitative Genetic Simulations in
Anthropology with an Example from the South Pa-
cific. Human Biology 65:897-91 5.

Konigsberg, L. W., and Stephen D. Ousley

1 995 Multivariate Quantitative Genetics of Anthropo-
metrics from the Boas Data. Human Biology 67:48] -
98.

Krauss, Michael E.

1988 Many Tongues — Ancient Tales. In Crossroads of
Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William
W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp. 145-50.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 75

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Lauter, Berthold

1 902 The Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 4, pt. 1 , pp. 1 -79. Mem-
oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 6.
New York.

Laughlin, William S., and Albert B. Harper

1 988 Peopling of the Continents: Australia and America.
In Biological Aspects of Human Migration. C. C. N.
Mascie-Taylor and G. W. Lasker, eds. Pp. 1 4-40. Cam-
bridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Levin, Maxim C.

1958 [1963] Etnicheskaia antropologiia i problemy
etnogeneza narodov Dal'nego Vostoka (Physical
anthropology and ethnogenetic problems of the
peoples of the Far East). Trudy Instituta etnografii
AN SSSR, 36. Moscow. Trans. H. Michael, Ethnic Ori-
gins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia, Arctic Insti-
tute of North America, Anthropology of the North,
Translations from Russian Sources, 3 (Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press).

Menovshchikov, Georgii A.

1964 The Eskimos. In The Peoples of Siberia. M. G.
Levin and L P. Potapov, eds. Pp. 836-50. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Merriwether, D., F. Rothammer, and R. E.

Ferret I

1995 Distribution of the Four Founding Lineage
Haplotypes in Native Americans Suggests a Single
Wave of Migration for the New World. American Jour-
nal of Physical Anthropology 98:41 1-30.

Merriwether, D. Andrew, William W. Hall,
Anders Vahlne, and Robert E. Ferrell

1996 mtDNA Variation Indicates Mongolia May Have
Been the Source for the Founding Populations for
the New World. American Journal of Human Genet-
ics 59(1):204-12.

Moss, Madonna L.

1992 Relationships between Maritime Cultures of
Southern Alaska: Rethinking Culture Area Boundaries.
Arctic Anthropology 29(2):5-l 7.

Oetteking, Bruno

1930 Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. The Jesup
North Pacific Expedition, vol. 11, pt. 1 . Memoirs of
the American Museum of Natural History, 1 5. Leiden:
E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Ousley, Stephen D.

1 993 Drops, Trickles, Waves, and Tides: North Pacific
Anthropometrics and the Peopling of North America.
M.A. thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

1995 Relationships between Eskimos, Amerindians,
and Aleuts: Old Data, New Perspectives. Human Bi-
ology 67(3):427-58.

1 997 The Quantitative Genetics of Epidermal Ridges
Using Multivariate Maximum Likelihood Estimation.

Ph.D. diss., University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

2000 Boas, Brinton, and the Jesup North Pacific Expe-
dition: The Return of the Americanoids. European
Review of Native American Studies 1 4(2): 1 1-1 7.

Relethford, J. H., and J. Blangero

1990 Detection of Differential Gene Flow from Pat-
terns of Quantitative Variation. Human Biology b2:S-
25.

Relethford, J. H., and M. C. Crawford

1995 Anthropometric Variation and the Population
History of Ireland. American Journal of Physical An-
thropology 96:25-38.

Santos, F. R., A. Pandya, C. Tyler-Smith, S. D.

J. Pena, M. S. Schanfield, W. R. Leonard, L.

Osipova, M. H. Crawford, and R. J. Mitchell

1 999 The Central Siberian Origin for Native American
Y Chromosomes. American Journal of Human Genet-
ics 64:619-28.

SAS Institute, Inc.

1 985 SAS User's Guide: 1985 Edition. Gary, NC.
Schurr, T. C, R. I. Sukernik, Y. B. Starikov-
skaya, and D. C. Wallace

1999 Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Koryaks and
Itel'men: Population Replacement in the Okhotsk
Sea-Bering Region during the Neolithic. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 1 08: 1 -39.

Spuhler, James N.

1 979 Genetic Distances, Trees, and Maps of North
American Indians. In The First Americans: Origins,
Affinities, and Adaptations. W. S. Laughlin and Albert
B. Harper, eds. Pp. 1 35-83. New York: Gustav Fischer.

Stewart, Thomas D.

1 973 The People of America. New York: Scribner.
Stocking, George W., Jr.

1 968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the His-
tory of Anthropology. New York: Free Press.
Suttles, Wayne

1 987 Coast Salish Essays. Seattle: University of Wash-
ington Press.
Szathmary, E.

1 979 Eskimo and Indian Contact: Examination of Crani-
ometric. Anthropometric and Genetic Evidence. Arctic
Anthropology 16:23-48.

1993 Genetics of Aboriginal North Americans. Evolu-
tionary Anthropology 1 :202-20.

Szathmary, E., and N. Ossenberg

1 978 Are the Biological Differences between North
American Indians and Eskimos Truly Profound? Cur-
rent Anthropology 1 9:673-701 .

Torroni, A., T. C. Schurr, C. Yang, E.

Szathmary, R. C. Williams, M. S. Schanfield, G.

A. Troup, W. C. Knowler, D. N. Lawrence, K.

M. Weiss, and D. C. Wallace

1992 Native American Mitochondrial DNA Analysis
Indicates That the Amerind and the NaDene Popula-

276

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

tions Were Founded by Two Independent Migrations.

Genetics 1 30:1 53-62.
Torroni, A., T. G. Schurr, M. F. Cabell, M. D.
Brown, J. N. Neel, M. Larsen, D. Smith, C. M.
Vullo, and D. C. Wallace

1993 Asian Affinities and Continental Radiation of the
Four Founding Native American Mitochondrial DNAs.
American Journal of Human Genetics 53:563-90.

Townsend, J. B.

1979 Indian or Eskimo? Interaction and Identity in
Southern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 16:160-83.
Ward, R. H., B. L. Frazier, K. Dew-Jager, and S.
Paabo

1 991 Extensive Mitochondrial Diversity within a Single
Amerindian Tribe. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences 88:8720-4.

Ward, R. H., A. Redd, D. Valencia, B. Frazier,
and S. Paabo

1 993 Genetic and Linguistic Differentiation in the Ameri-
cas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences 90:10663-7.

Williams-Blangero, S., and J. Blangero

1 989 Anthropometric Variation and the Genetic Struc-
ture of the Jirels of Nepal. /-/wmi^n S/o/o^y 6 1(1): 1-1 2.

Williams-Blangero, S., J. Blangero, and M. C.

Mahaney

1 992 Segregation Analysis of Craniometric Traits In-
corporating Genotypic-Specific Growth Patterns.
American Journal of Human Genetics 5 1 :A1 63.
Yokota, M., S. D. Ousley, and H. Ishida
n.d. Quantitative Traits and Ainu Origins. Manuscript in
preparation.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 77

Voices from Liberia

^thnomusicologtj of the ^Jesup Expedition

RICHARD KEELING

The stories, folklore texts, and other spoken narratives
collected during the Jesup North Pacific Expedition
(1897-1902) are fairly well known and are generally
available in published editions. By contrast, the musi-
cal sound recordings are much less accessible, and
their place or purpose in the original expedition design
is not adequately understood. The recordings include
Northwest Coast and Arctic Siberian collections that
have never been reviewed or subjected to compara-
tive analysis in any published study. I come to this
subject through my previous research related prima-
rily to North American Indian music of northern Califor-
nia (Keeling 1992a, 1992b). Ideas about music as a
vehicle for cultural analysis or historical interpretations
have changed immensely over the past 100 years.
What intrigued me was the opportunity to subject Boas'
data to the light of modern theories.

There is a vast amount of recorded evidence and
published research to build on. In order to help others
locate some of the more important early recordings
and the related writings, I have prepared an inventory
and bibliography, which follow (Appendixes A and B).
While many of these early collections have been docu-
mented quite carefully, the jesup Expedition musical
recordings remain poorly understood , despite their
key importance for future research.

Boas' Early Musicological Research

Music was important to Boas. He addressed the sub-
ject in more than 20 publications; he corresponded

with virtually all the major figures in Native American
music research throughout his career; and his students
included not only such distinguished musicologists as
George Herzog and Helen Roberts but also Alfred
Kroeber and Edward Sapir, whose accomplishments
in the area of native music research are less well known.'

Boas was among the first to recognize that vari-
ous aspects of culture — "religion and science; music,
poetry, and dance; myth and history; fashion and eth-
ics"— were all "intrinsically interwoven" (Boas 1 904:243).
This concept not only revolutionized current thinking
with respect to the nature of culture but also offered
the fascinating possibility that music and the arts could
be vehicles for comparative research.

In fact. Boas was an early pioneer in ethnomus-
icology. Systematic research on what was then called
"primitive music" began in 1 886 when Carl Stumpf pub-
lished a paper describing songs performed by a group
of Bella Coola Indians who visited Germany in 1885.
(Myron Eels had published a pioneering paper on Ameri-
can Indian music six years earlier; see Eels 1 879.) Boas
joined the new field almost immediately by publishing
similar, although less detailed, descriptions of music in
his classic ethnography of the Central Eskimo (Boas
1888). The musical notations in these and all earlier
studies were done by ear. A major advance occurred
with the invention of the Edison phonograph, patented
in the United States in 1 877, which made it easier to
collect musical data and also made the process of
transcription and analysis much more efficient.

279

The Edison-type phonograph was first used for eth-
nographic research in 1 890, when Jesse Walter Fewkes
created 31 cylinders of songs and spoken texts from
the Passamaquoddy Indians of Maine. Here again, Boas
was not far behind. In 1893 and 1895 he made al-
most 1 50 cylinder recordings among the KwakiutI
[Kwakwaka'wakw] on Vancouver Island and also
among various tribes of the Thompson River area in
British Columbia (see Appendix A). The Thompson River
recordings have particular significance because they
later became the subject of an important paper by
Otto Abraham and Erich von Hornbostel of the Berlin
Phonogram Archive.

With this publication (Abraham and von Hornbostel
1 906), the German musicologists Stumpf, Abraham,
and von Hornbostel had taken the lead in compara-
tive music theory. Using fairly detailed transcriptions
and statistical methods, they developed a style of
analysis that basically extended the concept of cul-
tural relativism to music. Previously, it had been thought
that "primitive" peoples were incapable of singing in
tune. Abraham and von Hornbostel showed, however,
that the style of the Thompson River singers was per-
fectly regular and consistent but was simply guided
by different principles of composition.

So when the Jesup Expedition began in 1 897, Boas
probably had high expectations for musicology as a
major component of the project, perhaps hoping to
justify his own long-standing commitment to music
as a central element in culture. The outlook for com-
parative musicology as a historical method had never
seemed more promising, armed as it was with a new
advanced technology for field collection and docu-
mentation, the Edison phonograph, and with exciting
new developments in theory.

This optimistic spirit lasted well into the 1930s,
when comparative research on Native American mu-
sic reached a peak of sorts in the work of George
Herzog (1935a, 1935b, 1936) and Helen Roberts (see
Appendix B). There followed a leveling of interest that
lasted through the 1950s. Since then, comparative

280

musicology has continuously declined as a focus within
the discipline of ethnomusicology. Indeed, it seems
ironic that the recent resurgence of interest in the field
is gravitating to such a degree around the same North
Pacific region and many of the same comparative is-
sues that had first stimulated Boas' interest a hundred
years earlier.

Musical Sound Recordings of the JNPE

Boas commissioned four or five separate musical col-
lections during the Jesup Expedition. This paper focuses
mainly on two sets of recordings that Waldemar
Jochelson and Waldemar Bogoras collected in Siberia
(Fig. 70). Other music-related investigations commis-
sioned as part of the Jesup Expedition research were
conducted by Livingston Farrand among the Quile-
ute and Quinault in 1898 and by John Reed Swanton
among the Haida in 1900-01 (see Appendix A). In
addition. Boas' 1 905 report on Jesup Expedition activi-
ties includes passages from letters in which Berthold
Laufer described making sound recordings among the
Nivkh [Cilyak] of Sakhalin Island in 1 898-99. These cyl-
inders, however, do not seem to have been deposited
at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in
New York, and I have not been able to locate them in
other American collections. Thus Bogoras' and Jochel-
son's recordings of songs and texts during 1 900-02
represent the only cylinder collection from northern
Siberia. They are an important component in any dis-
cussion of the music of the Native people of the North
Pacific region. The ethnic groups represented include
the Koryak, Tungus [Even], Yukagir, Yakut [Sakha], Chuk-
chi, and Siberian Eskimo [Yupik]. In all, there are 1 30
documented Jesup Expedition Siberian cylinders, origi-
nally deposited at the AMNH. Today, duplicates of the
recordings on tape are most readily available from the
Archives of Traditional Music at Indiana University,
grouped under catalogue number 54-1 49-F.^

One type of singing that is described in the pub-
lished literature but was evidently not recorded (or is
not identified properly in the available documentation)

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

(drumming continues throughout)

/ 1=3 1

1 ^ 1,.... 1=^

— '-

- J

1-4 —

_ 1 3_j

76/ Notation of song performed by Koryak female shaman, recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900.

is that connected with a Circle Dance performed
among several Arctic Siberian groups. Jochelson has
this to say about the dance, its distribution, and the
animal symbolism in the songs:

The circle dance is accompanied with
singing, which consists of four notes corre-
sponding to the four steps. The words
sung — ho'yoi-he'yui or he'ke-ha'ka — are
Tungus. The Yukaghir do not know their
meaning, and hold them to be pure interjec-
tions. It seems pretty obvious to me that this
dance has been borrowed from the Tungus.
Possibly the Yakut have also borrowed it
from the latter; but among the Yukaghir this
dance is at times accompanied by singing
and motions which are absent in the circle
dance of the Tungus but have become
familiar to us in dances of the Chukchi and
Koryak. The Tungus singing referred to above
was from time to time interrupted by a
guttural rattle and by other sounds in
imitation of the cries of various animals.
Some of the dancers, generally girls, produce
very skillfully a guttural rattle resembling the
grunting of seals, while the others answer
with higher guttural sounds. Qochelson
1910-26:130)

Jochelson made four recordings of a Yakut [Sakha]
woman performing what seem to be epic songs but
are not identified as such in the documentation pro-
vided with the recordings (ATM cylinders 4569^562).
Epic songs called yukara are also an important genre
among the Ainu of northern Japan. Thus, the lack of
epic songs in other Jesup Expedition collections raises
the question of the extent to which the Jesup record-
ings provide a complete picture of Native Siberian
musical activities.

Shaman Songs

What is certainly a strength of Jesup Siberian record-
ings is the significant number of shaman songs. Disre-
garding the cylinders containing spoken narratives and
Russian material, there are 92 songs or other musical
items, of which 37 are clearly identified as being sha-
manistic in character.^ The recordings contain many
different types of shamanistic vocalizing, which sug-
gests a possible distinction between Koryak, Chukchi,
and Tungus singing. Their importance for research is
enhanced by the fact that they correspond to activi-
ties that are extensively documented in the published
ethnographies by Jochelson (1908, 1910-26) and
Bogoras (1904-09).

One very prominent style among the musical re-
cordings is illustrated in a song performed by a female
Koryak shaman. It was recorded by Jochelson at the
Koryak village of Kuel, on the coast of the Sea of
Okhotsk in Northeast Siberia (Fig. 76).'' This is a fairly
repetitive two-phrase melody {a and b), and in fact the
a section has a variant that makes it nearly identical
with section b. The range is quite narrow, as the scale
consists basically of Just two tones only a minor third
apart. For a woman, the vocal quality is raspy, nasal-
ized, and strongly accentuated. The metrical structure
is basically simple, but the rhythm is very complex in
detail because it follows the changing syllables of a
text and is highly flexible or irregular in character.

A more exaggerated version of the same basic
style was performed for Jochelson by a male Koryak
shaman from the same village. It has an even more

RICHARD KEELING

J « 1 J ] ^ J I ] I J (drumming cont inues throughout )

77/ Notation of song performed by Koryak male shaman, recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900.

repetitive melody and is narrower in range, a major
second. In Boas' transcription the same melodic pat-
tern is reiterated seven times, with slight variations,
but on the recording itself it is repeated as few as five
and as many as eight times between breaks, and there
is also variation in the vocable patterns, as shown in a
typical rendition (Fig. 77). The tones are not clearly
focused in pitch, and there is much glottalization and
pulsation (indicated by the parenthesized noteheads).
The singing is loud and strongly accentuated. The
drumming is mainly in triplets but does not seem to be
precisely coordinated with the vocal part. On bal-
ance, the Koryak songs notated in Figures 76 and 77
represent the most predominant vocal pattern docu-
mented in the Jesup Expedition recordings, since the
collection also includes Yukagir and Chukchi songs in
a similar style.

A distinctly different style is heard in three songs
performed by a Tungus [Even] shaman at Najakhan
[Nayakhan], Siberia. In one of them (Fig. 78), what seems
to be a lexically meaningful text is intoned to a two-
beat melodic pattern that is repeated for as few as
five repetitions and as many as nine between breaks.
The phrase "bo-bo-bo-bo-bo-bo-bo," not shown in the

± too

J-

78/ Notation of a song performed by a Tungus male shaman, recorded by Waldemar
Jochelson, 1901.

notation, is interjected twice in a higher register. As in
the previous examples, the melody is quite repetitive,
but this is clearly a text-driven form, and the speechlike
vocal delivery is also much more relaxed than in the
previous examples. I have noticed a softer vocal deliv-
ery and similar three-tone scales in other, more recent
recordings of Tungus singing collected by the Russian
ethnomusicologist Yuri Sheikin.^

Several of the Jesup Expedition recordings contain
sounds that were made by shamans while conjuring
spirits or actually being possessed. These "animal spirit"
sounds are virtually impossible to notate, and the
recordings must truly be heard to appreciate the
variety of phonetics and vocal techniques involved. In
his description of the performance of a Yukagir
shaman named Tretyakov, Jochelson employed
phonetic spellings to indicate the voices the shaman
used in conjuring nine different animals, including
various types of birds, a wolf, and a bear Gochelson
1910-26:206).

Bogoras also provided several vivid descriptions
of shamanic seances and demonstrations, including
this account of what happens when a kele (a mon-
strous evil spirit) enters the body of a Chukchi shaman:

The shaman
shakes his head
violently, produc-
ing with his lips a
peculiar chattering
noise not unlike a
man who is
shivering with
cold. He shouts
hysterically, and in
a changed voice
utters strange,
prolonged shrieks

-1

-r

282

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

such as "O to to to," or "I pi, pi, pi, pi" — all of
which are supposed to characterize the voice
of the kelet. He often imitates the cries of
various animals and birds which are supposed
to be his particular assistants. If the shaman is
only a "single-bodied" one — that is, has no
ventriloquistic power, the kelet will proceed to
sing and beat the drum by means of his body.
The only difference will be in the timbre of the
voice, which will sound harsh and unnatural, as
becomes supernatural beings. . . . With other
shamans the kelet appear all at once as
"separate voices" . . . from all sides of the room,
changing their place to the complete illusion of
their listeners. Some voices are at first faint, as if
coming from afar; as they gradually approach
they increase in volume, and at last they rush
into the room, pass through it and out, de-
creasing, and dying away in the remote
distance. Other voices come from
above, pass through the room and
seem to go underground, where they
are heard as if from the depths of the
earth. Tricks of this kind are played also
with the voices of animals and birds,
and even with the howling of the
tempest, producing a most weird
effect. (Bogoras 1904-09:435)

Yupik Songs

The Jesup Expedition recordings clearly docu-
ment a different style of vocal music being
performed among the Yupik [Siberian Eskimo].
Beyond the obvious differences in vocal qual-
ity, the style of a Yupik song is clearly distin-
guished from those of the other Siberian
groups by its wider melodic range, relatively
complex strophic form, and six-tone scale.
On the recordings by Bogoras, one song is
sung three times, first in vocables (as notated)
and then twice with words. The text of this
song could not be transcribed effectively. It
is notated a minor second lower than it
sounds on the recording (Fig. 79).

Bogoras theorized that several of the
Maritime Chukchi songs he recorded in 1 901
were largely imitations of Eskimo songs
(Bogoras 1904-09:138). Influences of the
more complex Eskimo style are also appar-
ent in unpublished notations of Chukchi songs

by George Herzog.'' Bogoras' Chukchi recordings also
include "vocal games" or "throat games" much like
those performed by Eskimo women all across the Arc-
tic region, thus providing a highly significant basis for
comparison. According to Bogoras (1904-09:268-9)
these sounds imitate animal spirits such as Raven, Fox,
and Bear, suggesting that although the songs are os-
tensibly games, they may have shamanistic implica-
tions as well. Similar vocal games are documented
among the Ainu of northern Japan and the Amur River
Nanay (who belong to the Tungusic language stock),
but they are not present among other Siberian record-
ings in the Jesup Expedition collection.'

(o)

W£-

'ok ya 'a. [a] (a.) (a) ya ba. yo. -

ya yo. ""a (o) (a) bey yd n^a. ya

3 . > . r 1 14

\ (x) no. ya. 'a (3) ya. ya (a.) nja ya 'o.

ya. 'a me y£ ya m£(£.) \ (a.) yl yo. yt ya.

J J ;

'£ yo.

r-3-l

ya yo.

he 0) ya.

he yo. - ''a hey ya.

^£ ya. ya ya

\ \l 1

1 J ll

79/ Notation of a song preformed by a Yupik Eskimo man,
recorded by Waldemar Bogoras, 1901.

RICHARD KEELING

283

Comparative Perspectives on Arctic
Siberian Singing

Given these general divisions, Tungus [Even], Yakut
[Sakha], and Siberian Eskimo [Yupik] songs are clearly
related to, but also distinguishable from, a core Arctic
Siberian vocal style that could be summarized as fol-
lows:^

1 . Shamans' songs tend to predominate.

2. The singing is loud and raspy, with much
glottalization, vocal pulsation, and nasality.

3. Most texts consist of vocables or combinations
of words and vocables; the texts are highly repetitive,
and vocable patterns seem to be varied rather freely.

4. All of the songs are soloistic (except for vocal
games), though this may be because certain genres
were not recorded.

5. Simple one- or two-phrase melodies are the rule,
and phrases are short.

6. The melodic range is narrow.

7. The melodic contour is flat or undulating.

8. Simple two- or three-note scales predominate,
and the intonation is diffuse or imprecise.

9. Tempos are quick; simple meters and one-beat
rhythms predominate.

1 0. There seems to be a great deal of emphasis on
vocal "sound effects," some of which require consider-
able virtuosity, while melodic and rhythmic patterns
are highly repetitive.

In comparing this music with New World styles,
the differences between Arctic Siberian singing and
the more "complex" styles generally associated with
Eskimo (Inuit) singing or the Indian music of the North-
west Coast are striking. Utilizing standard methodol-
ogy, a musical overview of the North Pacific region as
a whole would have to include at least six distinct
subareas: Ainu, Arctic Siberia, Eskimo-Aleut, Athabasc-
an, Northwest Coast, and Northwestern California.
Describing song types and general profiles for the vo-
cal music of these groups would undoubtedly pro-
duce interesting evidence of historical contacts and
local elaborations. There is a fundamental consistency

through which the shamanistic functions of vocal mu-
sic are expressed throughout the North Pacific region,
despite the variations or differences between musical
systems. These patterns of musical symbolism are clearly
distinct from those documented elsewhere in North
America during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

New Directions in Comparative Music
Research

In order to understand the musical traditions of the
North Pacific region as a whole, or to appreciate that
Arctic Siberian recordings have significance for Native
American music, knowledge of advances in music
theory over the past 1 00 years is helpful.

The standard approach for analyzing musical sys-
tems, as employed by NettI (1 954), focuses mainly on
the stylistic characteristics of the music itself. This ap-
proach, however, has several drawbacks. The predomi-
nant characteristics are always difficult to identify with
certainty in repertories that are seldom homogeneous,
and this way of thinking does not place enough em-
phasis on the relationships between style and cultural
function or significance. Nettl's approach is also
synchronic in that it allows no means of documenting
change over time. This is a problem that has limited
the success of comparative research on Native Ameri-
can music since its beginnings. NettI basically tries to
identif/ the predominant styles of Indian and Eskimo
music in six different culture areas and finds no corre-
spondence with the Siberian style.

A more integrated concept would focus more on
the social and ritual contexts of music-making and on
musical semiotics or symbolism. Specifically, I believe
that connections can be found between the music
itself and other elements of what I have called "the
northern hunting complex" or the "northern hunting re-
ligion" (Keeling 1992b:36-9). This concept basically
follows the interpretations in Fitzhugh and Crowell
(1988) and in earlier works such as Hallowell's (1926)
study of bear ceremonialism. It includes such features
as animal understanding of human intentions, refleshing

284

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

of animals after the kill, and generalized shamanism.
Songs and dances that imitate or evoke animal deities
are central to this complex.

As George Herzog pointed out in 1935 (Herzog
1935b), most Indian repertories also contain simpler
songs — older songs, evidently — in which the singer
imitates the speech of animals or spirit-persons. Liter-
ally hundreds of these "animal-speech songs" were col-
lected among North American Indian tribes between
1890 and 1930. These do correspond to the Arctic
Siberian style, and their wide distribution throughout
North America strongly suggests that the style is very
ancient indeed. This highlights the importance of ac-
counting for the historical dimension in any compara-
tive study, not only across the North Pacific region but
all over North America. This type of song is quite pos-
sibly the very type of singing that Paleo-lndian peoples
brought with them when they first populated the
Americas, a type from which other styles of singing
gradually developed. In other words, the significance
of the Siberian recordings is perhaps best revealed by
taking a historical approach to the field of Native
American music as a whole.

Although this "musical archaeology" has some sci-
entific value, it has other implications as well. Most
important, it tends to validate the songs and dances
of modern Native peoples. The older viewpoint im-
plies that modern styles and functions of music are
somehow less authentic than those of the 1 8th and
1 9th centuries. By contrast, a historical orientation un-
derlines the fact that Native American culture has been
changing and adapting to new circumstances for thou-
sands of years.

Future research on the music of the North Pacific
region therefore also needs to focus on contemporary
musical activities. This is important for promoting cul-
tural survival and increasing public awareness that Na-
tive cultures are by no means becoming "extinct." But
it is also necessary because this modern Native music
has social, psychological, and even political functions
that are historically significant in their own right.

RICHARD KEELING

I mentioned toward the beginning how ironic it
seems that a recent interest in comparative studies of
music has centered on the same region and some of
the same questions that first absorbed Boas and his
coworkers a century ago. But perhaps even more poi-
gnant is the extent to which the prospects for future
research depend on documenting and building on what
the Jesup team accomplished. Without a doubt, the
pathway to future investigations can only begin where
the trail of the Jesup Expedition came to an end.

Appendix A

A Preliminary Inventory of Phonographic Cylinder
Collections, 1 893 to 1 933

This appendix provides an overview of early musical
recordings, listed in roughly chronological order. Many
of the collections listed here also include spoken texts.
The following types of information are provided, as
available: (a) collector's name, (b) tribes or ethnic groups
represented, (c) approximate dates of the recordings,
(d) number of cylinders recorded, (e) area where the
recordings were made and name of the institution or
program sponsoring the research, (f) the current loca-
tions of tape duplicate recordings in (American) archives
or libraries, and (g) published sources that provide mu-
sical transcriptions, translations of song texts, or other
useful information on the recordings. The citations re-
fer to Appendix B, which presents a selected anno-
tated bibliography of these and other relevant sources.

As for cultural and geographic coverage, I have
included recordings spanning an arc from the Ainu of
northern Japan to the Yurok and other tribes of north-
western California. Eastern Arctic Inuit groups such as
the Caribou, Labrador, and Greenland Eskimo are not
listed, although I have included materials identified as
McKenzie Delta Eskimo, Copper Eskimo, and Central
Eskimo. The lack of early cylinder collections from Alas-
kan Eskimo groups was unexpected, considering that
more recent types of recordings are fairly numerous.

In preparing the inventory and bibliography, I re-
lied on several reference works rather than personally

285

consulting every source or collection. The list is in-
tended to be comprehensive, but there are sure to be
omissions and inaccuracies, particularly because I have
summarized information that other sources generally
provide in more detailed form. This appendix repre-
sents a preliminary phase of my own research in the
region. The formidable task of listing more recent re-
cordings will have to be addressed later, at which time
it may also be possible to provide additions and cor-
rections to the present inventory.

Abbreviations

The institutions and programs that store original
recordings or duplicates are as follows:
AFC: American Folklife Center, Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C.
AMNH: American Museum of Natural History, New York
ATM: Archives for Traditional Music, Indiana University,

Bloomington

MJC: Melville Jacobs Collection, University of Washing-
ton, Seattle

1987:25; see also Roberts and Swadesh 1955.

Collector

Ethnic Group

Year(s) Number of
Cylinders

Collection
Information

Storage
Location

References

Benjamin 1.

KwakiutI

1893 18 cylinders

Collected at the

Tape

Cray 1988:

Gilman

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

World's Columbian

duplicates:

51.

Exposition, with

AFC.

support from the

Mary Hemenway

Expedition.

Franz Boas

KwakiutI

1 893 or 37 cylinders

Recorded at Fort

Tape

Problems c

and/or John

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

1895

Rupert, Vancouver

duplicates:

identificati'

Comfort

Island, British

ATM (54-1 21-

discussed i

Fillmore

Columbia, with

F).

Seeger and

support from the

1987:24.

AMNH.

Franz Boas

KwakiutI

1 895 91 cylinders

Collected by Boas

Tape

Problems c

and George

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

and Hunt for the

duplicates:

identificatii

Hunt

AMNH.

ATM (54-035-

discussed i

F).

Seeger and

1987:24.

Franz Boas

Thompson River

1895 42 cylinders

Recorded among

Tape

Seeger and

Indians

various tribes of

duplicates:

1987:65; s

the Thompson

ATM (54-1 39-

the notatio

River area, British

F).

other infor

Columbia, for the

in Abrahan

AMNH.

von Hornb(

1906.

Livingston

Quileute and

1898 44 cylinders

Collected from the

Tape

Seeger and

Farrand

Quinault

Quileute (10

duplicates:

1987:58-9

cylinders) and

ATM (54-1 27-F,

Quinault (34

54-1 28-F).

cylinders) of

Washington State

for the JNPE.

286

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

Collector

Ethnic Croup

Year(s)

Number of
Cylinders

Collection
Information

Storage
Location

References

John Reed

Haida

1900-01

?: May have Research

No collection

Swanton 1912

Swanton

involved

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Gateways : exploring the legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902"

See other formats